If the NCAA has the freedom to adopt a standard of compensation that's related to education then that does offer some wiggle room to compensate the athletes more without upending the system. They should be careful about how stingy this ruling might allow them to be.

Let's say the NCAA goes back on their old rules regarding room and board. That is, they go back to allowing schools to provide athlete-only dorms and things of that nature.

Honestly, I think they'd be wise to revisit things like that. The more amenities you offer the athletes then the less likely you are to be the defendant in more lawsuits down the line.

Not that I expect anyone in the NCAA to voluntarily raise the standard of compensation to any significant degree, but I think they need to look in the mirror here and be honest about how we got the point that the entire business model was one ruling away from obliteration.

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This is actually a big win for the NCAA and the established order, as it allows the NCAA to limit compensation to academic expenses.

If this ruling stands, the status quo will basically be maintained.

This reminds me of when the NFL 'lost' the antitrust suit the USFL filed against it, and was ordered to pay ..... $1, which was trebled to $3 in punitive damagss, lol.

I was listening to a lawyer discuss the case on the radio and he was relatively confident that the final decision would be something like that. He said it might sound like it’s still allows capping—which seems to fly in the face of the entire fee market/anti-trust ruling. But he said the anti trust laws also apparently require that bussiness model not be harmed or damaged by any changes required.

If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

G5 schools can probably afford to buy some books and stuff. We can't afford to buy your mama a house. And we can't keep up with the facilities arms race. That's always been the problem and I don't see this changing that all that much.

(03-09-2019 10:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 10:04 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 01:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 10:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I must be reading this differently from everyone else who has posted in this thread. To me, it looks like the NCAA won.


The NCAA can still outlaw things like Will Wade's "strong ass offer" to a player's family and/or street agent because the NCAA can say that's not related to education and the courts would back them up on that.

Can't pay Zion Williamson the multi-million salary he is worth to Duke -- can't pay him above the table, anyway. Above the table, you can only add a few more peanuts to the peanuts that the athletes already get.

The under the table payments made through skeezy bagmen will continue, because the judge opened the door only a tiny crack and said the NCAA can keep it from opening any wider than that.

I agree. NCAA might have to pay attorney fees but they won on employee pay

Exactly. Despite allowing far more benefits to be bestowed on student athletes, the basic scholarship student athlete model for college sports essentially remains intact.

Right. And rather than attack Title IX passive aggressively like giving certain student athletes, like football players, more education stipends than others, like the girls on the field hockey team, the schools/conferences/NCAA would be wise to use this time to revisit the schism between their amateur operations model to what individual athletes can get on the side away from the schools. Let the schools run on their old model, and what the athletes do on the side be their own.

Attack caps, sure...just, make caps altogether irrelevant.

Schools are NOT going to attack Title IX passively or aggressively. For one thing, they almost always lose in court. For another, there has been a sea-change in administrator attitudes. Even at football-crazy schools in the south, the top admins these days are usually steeped in the liberal values that embrace Title IX.

I don't think they will challenge it, either, but even with spotlights on certain issues and institutions, can consensus be found across all of NCAA on overhauling how it (the schools and organization as a whole) interprets amateurism, or do we go further down the rabbit hole with these equally liberal derivative solutions its already created?

Then again, I believe the schools should be paying taxes on its athletic operations, too, so, I'm highly skeptical of any solution the NCAA will concoct.

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

Non-P5 programs won't have to worry about this right away.

The NCAA will be able to maintain the status quo for a year or two while they appeal the judge's decision. And this decision might get trimmed even further in the NCAA's favor, just as her decision in the O'Bannon case was cut back when it was appealed.

Just as a guess: The key dispute on appeal will be whether there are any restrictions on the NCAA's ability to decide by itself whether certain benefits are "related to education".

If the final outcome is that the NCAA has wide latitude to call everything not permitted today "unrelated to education", then maybe the NCAA doesn't have to change its so-called amateurism at all. On the other hand, if the courts leave the plaintiffs or individual schools room to go back to the judge and argue whether they can give each football player a $2000 stipend for computers and pay for them to take summer classes in Italy, then maybe the rules will eventually be different.

(03-09-2019 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

Non-P5 programs won't have to worry about this right away.

The NCAA will be able to maintain the status quo for a year or two while they appeal the judge's decision. And this decision might get trimmed even further in the NCAA's favor, just as her decision in the O'Bannon case was cut back when it was appealed.

Just as a guess: The key dispute on appeal will be whether there are any restrictions on the NCAA's ability to decide by itself whether certain benefits are "related to education".

If the final outcome is that the NCAA has wide latitude to call everything not permitted today "unrelated to education", then maybe the NCAA doesn't have to change its so-called amateurism at all. On the other hand, if the courts leave the plaintiffs or individual schools room to go back to the judge and argue whether they can give each football player a $2000 stipend for computers and pay for them to take summer classes in Italy, then maybe the rules will eventually be different.

Your correct in that the scholarship model will clearly continue to rule the day. However, I think the rules are definitely going to be different and I think the definition of what constitutes "educational benefit" is going to have a lot of latitude. Keep in mind--both sides can return to court to attempt to have the definition amended---so both sides of the dispute will have to believe the definition is reasonable and not too restrictive (or liberal). It seems to me that the net affect of an NCAA definition is the conferences will end up offering about the same thing. So--while the athletes will certainly realize increased value for their services, I doubt this results in much actual "competition" in "educational benefit" levels between conferences.

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 12:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 11:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This is actually a big win for the NCAA and the established order, as it allows the NCAA to limit compensation to academic expenses.

If this ruling stands, the status quo will basically be maintained.

This reminds me of when the NFL 'lost' the antitrust suit the USFL filed against it, and was ordered to pay ..... $1, which was trebled to $3 in punitive damagss, lol.

I was listening to a lawyer discuss the case on the radio and he was relatively confident that the final decision would be something like that. He said it might sound like it’s still allows capping—which seems to fly in the face of the entire fee market/anti-trust ruling. But he said the anti trust laws also apparently require that bussiness model not be harmed or damaged by any changes required.

If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

There will be a gap between G5 schools. Boise State could upped it, but San Jose State can't.

Boise State, BYU, UCF etc. haves.
San Jose State, Texas State, La.-Monroe, Georgia State, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, New Mexico State, Georgia State are have nots. We do have 3 tiers at the FBS levels. FCS do have the haves and have nots. NDSU could actually be ahead of the have nots in the FBS.

Offering unlimited post-grad work is a super cheap benefit that costs basically nothing. MLB started offering post-pro career scholarships to college to the high draft picks and soon extended it to basically everyone because so few ever used the benefit. Really doubt offering post-grad rides is going to cost enough for anyone to notice the expense.

(03-09-2019 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

Non-P5 programs won't have to worry about this right away.

The NCAA will be able to maintain the status quo for a year or two while they appeal the judge's decision.

Is the NCAA even going to appeal? I wouldn't.

(03-10-2019 10:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

Non-P5 programs won't have to worry about this right away.

The NCAA will be able to maintain the status quo for a year or two while they appeal the judge's decision.

Is the NCAA even going to appeal? I wouldn't.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. All Alston really accomplished was the implementation of stipends as they were first conceived before the NCAA constricted them into their version of uniformity. It's not pay for play, but it will be more livable and enjoyable for the athletes.

The ruling could, and perhaps should, have been easily worse for the NCAA. In fact I would go so far as to say that this ruling wreaked of government institutional protectionism, keeping in mind that most NCAA schools are state run institutions.

I'm hardly the guy who seeks to mandate more expense, but let's get real here. Virtually 3/4's of Auburn's campus (definitely middle class) is covered in 30,000 dollar pickup trucks and SUV's and those are the students. The living conditions today compared to when I was a freshman are over the top stark by comparison. The norm when I was in school were two room efficiency apartments which were high dollar back then at $300 a month. $800 a month now is the norm, but $1500 a month is not unheard of and they are made with the amenities of condos with frequently a bath per bedroom and all bedrooms private and not shared.

My point is that athletes get great food, great health care, work their butts off, and by comparison to the rest of the campus live below the campus average where it counts with the kids. Yeah they get bling, mom & dad may have a visit from the bag man to get them to sign, and the stars still live well, but what about the other 60 or more kids on the team?

I don't expect them to have the plush pickups or SUV's, but they earn the school more money and donations than the regular students. They garner the schools more public recognition than the English major grad student at Haley Center. And the average student isn't as likely to injure their joints or suffer from arthritis later in life as one of the athletes.

The sad part of this ruling for me is that it maintains the hypocrisy of the NCAA's version of amateurism. And since the stars will still get under the table benefits at most schools it will continue to teach these kids that life's a dodge and everyone is corrupt.

Judge Wilken's didn't want to negatively impact a business by forcing radical change. But she up held the advantages of the institutions without considering how all of it could have been cleaned up significantly with a paycheck and a W2.

My hope in Alston's case was that payola would become paycheck and the kids could feel some pride in what they earned and in themselves instead of being forced to continue to operate in a jaded system where by their needs they would be forced to be complicit with the hypocrisy that has become the NCAA run "amateur" sports. Perhaps a paycheck would have put a little bit more loyalty back into the school experience. People do still take pride in their legitimate work. Forgotten in all of this is the right way of doing things, a way that leaves both the institution and athlete feeling good about the arrangement.

Something in this country is fundamentally wrong when all business arrangements (and that is what this is) are not above board, transparent, and legal. A University's job is to educate young men and women and to turn out better citizens. So wouldn't a clearly legal transaction be a better teaching tool for these young men and women than what we have? And wouldn't a stiffer ruling against the NCAA have helped us to get there?

What about player likeness to be used in NCAA video games? I'm sure EA wouldn't mind paying players something, but NCAA was against it. I'm sure folks would love to see new versions NCAA Football(which hasn't been since 2014) and NCAA Basketball(which hasn't been since 2010).

(03-10-2019 12:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Offering unlimited post-grad work is a super cheap benefit that costs basically nothing. MLB started offering post-pro career scholarships to college to the high draft picks and soon extended it to basically everyone because so few ever used the benefit. Really doubt offering post-grad rides is going to cost enough for anyone to notice the expense.

IMO, there could be quite a few athletes in sports other than football and men's basketball who would use a free grad school benefit.

(03-10-2019 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 12:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Offering unlimited post-grad work is a super cheap benefit that costs basically nothing. MLB started offering post-pro career scholarships to college to the high draft picks and soon extended it to basically everyone because so few ever used the benefit. Really doubt offering post-grad rides is going to cost enough for anyone to notice the expense.

IMO, there could be quite a few athletes in sports other than football and men's basketball who would use a free grad school benefit.

True, but then they don't cost as much to the institutions to begin with.

Easiest solution is to allow the players the opportunity to have a job. If the local car dealer wants to pay them to nothing and a big salary, that's on them.

Texas Quarterback Complained "Unpaid Internships"

Quote:"Consider a full-time unpaid internship that requires 1-4 years of participation, with a minimum 40-hour work week. This internship generates millions of dollars for your company, and billions of dollars for the broadcasting companies that cover your industry," wrote Ehlinger, who is studying business at Texas. "Within this internship, you risk your short-term and long-term health on a daily basis. You endure this internship with less than a 2 percent chance to advance in your industry and obtain a full-time paid job. Would you accept this position?"

What a spoiled brat? They are already being compensated an education. Geesh.

(03-10-2019 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 12:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Offering unlimited post-grad work is a super cheap benefit that costs basically nothing. MLB started offering post-pro career scholarships to college to the high draft picks and soon extended it to basically everyone because so few ever used the benefit. Really doubt offering post-grad rides is going to cost enough for anyone to notice the expense.

IMO, there could be quite a few athletes in sports other than football and men's basketball who would use a free grad school benefit.

If I read the ruling correctly, it only pertained to football, plus men's and women's basketball. I doubt mant schools would throw all their other athletes in out of the good of their hearts.

(03-10-2019 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 10:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If anything, this ruling will probably increase the gap between the A5 and the G5, because what it probably will shake out as is the A5 will be able to pay a few more thousand dollars per athlete in academic-related expenses - which they can easily afford.

G5 schools and conferences will be put in the tougher position of choosing to either not paying for the same expenses as A5 schools, putting them even farther behind in the eyes of recruits, or paying those same expenses, but from budgets that are already running big structural deficits to do so. It will be much more painful for those schools that decide to "match" what the A5 does.

Non-P5 programs won't have to worry about this right away.

The NCAA will be able to maintain the status quo for a year or two while they appeal the judge's decision.

Is the NCAA even going to appeal? I wouldn't.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. All Alston really accomplished was the implementation of stipends as they were first conceived before the NCAA constricted them into their version of uniformity. It's not pay for play, but it will be more livable and enjoyable for the athletes.

The ruling could, and perhaps should, have been easily worse for the NCAA. In fact I would go so far as to say that this ruling wreaked of government institutional protectionism, keeping in mind that most NCAA schools are state run institutions.

I'm hardly the guy who seeks to mandate more expense, but let's get real here. Virtually 3/4's of Auburn's campus (definitely middle class) is covered in 30,000 dollar pickup trucks and SUV's and those are the students. The living conditions today compared to when I was a freshman are over the top stark by comparison. The norm when I was in school were two room efficiency apartments which were high dollar back then at $300 a month. $800 a month now is the norm, but $1500 a month is not unheard of and they are made with the amenities of condos with frequently a bath per bedroom and all bedrooms private and not shared.

My point is that athletes get great food, great health care, work their butts off, and by comparison to the rest of the campus live below the campus average where it counts with the kids. Yeah they get bling, mom & dad may have a visit from the bag man to get them to sign, and the stars still live well, but what about the other 60 or more kids on the team?

I don't expect them to have the plush pickups or SUV's, but they earn the school more money and donations than the regular students. They garner the schools more public recognition than the English major grad student at Haley Center. And the average student isn't as likely to injure their joints or suffer from arthritis later in life as one of the athletes.

The sad part of this ruling for me is that it maintains the hypocrisy of the NCAA's version of amateurism. And since the stars will still get under the table benefits at most schools it will continue to teach these kids that life's a dodge and everyone is corrupt.

Judge Wilken's didn't want to negatively impact a business by forcing radical change. But she up held the advantages of the institutions without considering how all of it could have been cleaned up significantly with a paycheck and a W2.

My hope in Alston's case was that payola would become paycheck and the kids could feel some pride in what they earned and in themselves instead of being forced to continue to operate in a jaded system where by their needs they would be forced to be complicit with the hypocrisy that has become the NCAA run "amateur" sports. Perhaps a paycheck would have put a little bit more loyalty back into the school experience. People do still take pride in their legitimate work. Forgotten in all of this is the right way of doing things, a way that leaves both the institution and athlete feeling good about the arrangement.

Something in this country is fundamentally wrong when all business arrangements (and that is what this is) are not above board, transparent, and legal. A University's job is to educate young men and women and to turn out better citizens. So wouldn't a clearly legal transaction be a better teaching tool for these young men and women than what we have? And wouldn't a stiffer ruling against the NCAA have helped us to get there?

I take away two things from the report. First, most of the benefit - especially grad school benefits - would probably go to those 60 or so players on the football team, maybe 8-10 MBB players and WBB players. The ones that aren't getting what I think of as "signing bonuses", and won't play in the NFL or NBA. That's not a bad thing, even if it is relatively modest compared with their contribution to the university.

Second is what it didn't address. Namely, payments by third parties for the use of name and/or image. I don't see where the ruling explicitly said that the NCAA could maintain a ban on such payments. I am hoping that other forces will move the NCAA in the direction of allowing endorsement income before much longer. If they do, that would IMO reduce much of the hypocrisy you rightly deplore.

(03-10-2019 11:47 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  What about player likeness to be used in NCAA video games? I'm sure EA wouldn't mind paying players something, but NCAA was against it. I'm sure folks would love to see new versions NCAA Football(which hasn't been since 2014) and NCAA Basketball(which hasn't been since 2010).

It's truly remarkable that this hasn't been figured out yet either.

EA could just lump their payment into the player stipend somehow. I think I read where it would only be roughly $100/player per year anyway

Since it seems that the lawsuit is for the whole NCAA which means D2 and D3 schools are effective. Each division do have a governing body, but they all are NCAA under NCAA rules. That means D2 and D3 football and basketball players have to get more. The one school that would be hurt the most would be Presbyterian. They are not big, and I could see them downgrading to NAIA which the ruling do not affect them there.

The question is when would players from the other sports start suing so that they can get more? This is something I think could cause some movements like upgrading and downgrading. I think LIU and LIU-Post did saw something coming and merged their 2 programs together. I could see FDU get their D3 Florham athletics department merged with the main campus where football would be brought back.

(03-11-2019 08:25 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:47 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  What about player likeness to be used in NCAA video games? I'm sure EA wouldn't mind paying players something, but NCAA was against it. I'm sure folks would love to see new versions NCAA Football(which hasn't been since 2014) and NCAA Basketball(which hasn't been since 2010).

It's truly remarkable that this hasn't been figured out yet either.

EA could just lump their payment into the player stipend somehow. I think I read where it would only be roughly $100/player per year anyway

The NCAA is missing out on a huge tool to promote their game.

All they have to do is pay up a little and get permission from the players to use their likeness for the video game and that only. It's not like any player is marketable on a wide ranging basis for other video games so just sell them on that. Also, the NCAA has no reason to own their likeness in any and all arenas. The players should agree to it in exchange for a fee every time a new game comes out. Shouldn't be hard to accomplish.

On that note, I have an idea how everyone could win if the players own their full likeness and are allowed to capitalize on it...

The players should be allowed to use their full likeness any time they want, but if they participate in an NCAA sport then the organization gets a cut. It should be something small, like 10%. I think that's fair for everyone because the player should own his person, but the argument can be made that the NCAA helped establish his platform that allowed him to have endorsements in the first place.

So no limit on number of "tutors" Louisville can offer?