(10-09-2019 06:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 05:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:41 AM)MU88 Wrote:  To be a NCAA member, you voluntarily agree to amateurism rules. If do not comply, you agree the NCAA can ban institution from post season and NCAA events. Hence, under rules, the schools in California voluntarily agreed to, if the players get paid, allow themselves to be banned from NCAA events, with no right of appeal. California law does not supersede the contract. There is no requirement that the California schools belong to the NCAA. They can join the NAIA or one of the other sanctioning bodies (ACCA or the like). They may try to sue the NCAA, but they would, most likely, lose. Not a big difference from a school kicking out a frat because they are not comply with the school's rules they voluntarily accepted.

That approach might work for the NCAA if California was the only state, but right now, there are about 12 states considering similar legislation, plus the US Congress.

If those go through, the NCAA will have its hand forced.

Maybe. Im becoming more and more convinced that none of the state laws will stand up to a challenge. The federal law is more problematic--but Im not sure it can withstand a challenge either. As long as the schools are not using race, religion, or gender to prevent players from being eligible as "amateur" for NCAA competition--Im not sure the federal government's right to define eligibility within a private amateur organization with voluntary membership would survive a challenge. In the past, this kind of interference in non-profit organizations has largely been restricted to civil rights matters of race, sex, and religious discrimination.

I think you are wrong b/c the court ruled in favor of O'Bannon's right to earn money on his NIL. They just let the scholarship be enough, but all this legislation is aimed at opening it up to third parties.

Also, I don't care which side wins, I just think the side you don't like is going to prevail.

Yes, Coog seems to forget that the Appeals court in the O'Bannon case merely said that scholarship + FCOA absolved the NCAA of its anti-trust violation in barring payment for names and licenses, but that is entirely different from what the NCAA would need now, which is a court to rule that states that want to free their athletes to exploit their names and likenesses are somehow violating ..... what legal principle?

True, but of O'Bannon the 9th Circuit COA also said this:

Quote:...In our judgment, however, the district court clearly erred in finding it a viable alterative [sic] to allow students to receive NIL cash payments untethered to their education expenses...

...The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap. Once that line is crossed, we see no basis for returning to a rule of amateurism and no defined stopping point; we have little doubt that plaintiffs will continue to challenge the arbitrary limit imposed by the district court until they have captured the full value of their NIL. At that point the NCAA will have surrendered its amateurism principles entirely...

This is why we keep hearing some NCAA types paying lip service to NIL action while using the words "tethered to education" (as if there is some way to tie education & 3rd party payments to athletes.)

Direct pay for play is the very last thing the NCAA wants. (I'm all for it. They do it anyway via athletic schollys.)