(12-19-2023 04:58 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 04:49 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 04:35 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  Its not the rules as much how they are enforced. Alabama gets away with more than App would.

Then, again, it's up to member institutions to not only honor their agreement but encourage equal enforcement. As an example, we know that Michigan isn't the only squad who stole signals. Louisiana couldn't do much against App for the longest time and then Billy comes in with his 40 analysts and seemingly every play Louisiana's defense was suddenly in the right position. There were some rumblings that Louisiana's defense was calling out App's plays before the snap and that would come from one spot. With that many analysts, and numerous other support staff and industry contacts, getting someone at games to steal signs would be easy enough.

Point being, that it's going on everywhere to some degree. The fact Harbaugh was suspended for it while other schools are ignored is very telling. It's not just a P5 ignorance thing, it's the programs themselves and likely their connections, as well as their willingness to fight back.

So if you can't have equal enforcement of rules, for one reason or another, I don't see why the NCAA can't make threats to eject member institutions. If 25 schools want to go, let them go. There are hundreds of other programs to consider here. Watching G5 bowl games, for me, makes me realize that a true playoff system wouldn't be all that bad and then you could reorganize the NCAA for fair enforcement of new and existing rules.

None of us is competing with Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, or Michigan anyway, in almost any sport other than maybe certain olympic sports, softball, and baseball. Why it matters so much to be connected to them I don't get. We can all offer the same number of scholarships and the talent disparity will likely remain unchanged.

I would argue the failure to adequately govern the sport is a feature rather than a bug of the NCAA. The big brands don’t want responsible governance so we don’t have it. The NCAA’s claim that it exists to ensure fairness in competition, is a smokescreen. Competition would be vastly better off with a governing body that actually punished misconduct. Not these fake administrative sanctions that are inconsistently applied.

How do you get around that when Alabama or Michigan stands to lose millions of dollars thanks to rules that they helped create? It's really a microcosm of society at this point. The powerful, as has been present for as long as civilization has existed, in general are let off the hook. Those who are threats to the balance of power are beheaded. In politics we see it happening, in academics you will see it in research publications (or lack of publications), and with athletics you see it with the desire to essentially castrate the NCAA. We, as American's, like to pretend like corruption doesn't exist on a large scale but I think we are seeing so many things play out that dispel this notion.

(12-19-2023 05:21 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 05:49 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 07:56 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  No one is forcing these people to play Football / Basketball. They are choosing to do this to themselves and they know the time and effort required to do so. They also have the choice to be a normal student, pay their own way, graduate and make a decent living.

All of this NIL and Transfer Portal and NFL aspirations... that's all their problem. Shouldn't be the school's problem and definitely shouldn't be the fan and alumna's problem. So if this all comes down to players are employees, then yank that scholarship and give it to someone that needs it.

No one is forcing FBS schools to sponsor FBS football. They do need to follow the law though.

Hey, you want to know something? Courts don't make laws. As things exist now, the colleges and universities have been following the laws. They've been following the laws as long as schools have been sponsoring athletics programs and offering scholarships which is to say that for 100+ years they have followed the law.

The only thing that changed is the jurisprudence. Find a left leaning court district and file a lawsuit. It's been the model for quite a long time. They will rule in favor of almost anything, no matter how ridiculous or incorrect.

If the Supreme Court decides to take up one of these cases, we may see some semblance of research and fairness. The lower courts just say "nope, NCAA can't do anything, can't make any rules, and can't enforce those rules that they try to make as it pertains to anything". By the new rulings, one could suggest that the NCAA rules regarding the football games themselves are unconstitutional because the NCAA doesn't have the power to make rules for it's member institutions.

So yes, they've been following the law which no one had a problem with until someone found the right judge.

What changed was the money. No one cared about finding the right court until roughly 70 of the 1,100 NCAA members started pulling in tens of millions of dollars in TV rights annually and paying coaches $5 million/year.

The other 1,030 of us are now caught in the crossfire.

Watch this and tell me schools aren’t investing all that tv money into the players

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbKM6qJ2Tc

Sweet housing, free food, free clothes, free rec center, free travel to different parts of the country.

Yep. They are getting nothing out of that tv money.

(12-18-2023 05:48 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:01 AM)Johnnychimpo Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 04:28 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 02:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Blame the Power 5.

When the money exploded they could have said, "Oh wow this is cool, now we can send money over to academics to fund scholarships, research, faculty salaries and things like that in recognition of the fact the university spent money to create these programs long ago."

They didn't. Two and a half decades ago we got our first million a year head coach. Even adjusted for inflation, every P5 coach makes double that or more, few make 5 times as much. Money got plowed into facilities.

With that gross and excessive spending it became obvious that intercollegiate athletics had a lot of money and they were spending it wildly, except on players. The schools when viewed through the lens of the Sherman Anti-trust Act had banded together conspired to limit compensation for players while spending freely on coaching salaries, and with construction companies and on various amenities to attract players. Coaches got what the market would pay while the players they could get a better training table and more coaches to push them to train even harder.

Hell players got an even worse deal. Instead of the really old days when they showed up a week or two before school and finished withe the season, we moved to arrive a month to five weeks before school and give us a month in the spring to today when a player is really only excused from campus for about four weeks total over the year, less if they play in a bowl after around December 21.

So they don't get to compete for wages but they do have to do as directed for 47-49 weeks a year or lose their spot.

Just a week or two ago Department of Justice got a verdict against major egg producers for fixing the price of eggs. Well that's not far removed from the reality that Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, USC all compete for the services of football players, except they have agreed to not compete based on compensation. Yeah we now have NIL but university funds aren't supposed to go to NIL, instead we have this ridiculous tip jar system of people paying money into collectives to fund "NIL".

Compensation doesn’t have to be complicated. Paid fellowships are already a thing. I see no reason why athletic scholarships could not be upgraded to athletic resident fellowships.

This is not a comparable situation. My buddy is an ER pulmonary lung doctor specialist. He did not get paid during medical school or during his residency at all. It wasn’t until his last 2 years of his fellowship that he got paid a meager 60-70K/yr to work up to 80 hr weeks and that came after being out of pocket 30-40k yr in tuition the previous 10 years of med/residency school along with 4 yrs of undergrad.

Now that he is almost 40 he is finally making around 500K and that’s only because he just made partner for his hospital. Despite that he still is around 200K in debt for school. Contrary to popular belief not all MDs are making a cool 2 mill yr like Netflix advertises.

What is not comparable is that there is a cartel of 350 member schools that collectively block the players and collude to fix their wages at zero. That doesn’t happen to MDs, artists or any other student fellow because it’s patently illegal. The best medical programs offer generous fellowships because they are competing with each other to attract the best. NCAA schools collectively earn $1 billion annually and then collude to not compete with each other on paid incentives to players. No other industry gets away with this practice.

One of my favorite rock bands started as a passion project by graduate music students. Imagine if some cartel of 350 music schools blocked them from performing or transferring while enrolled. Any school would want to have famous musicians. They compete for them. Schools obviously want athletes too. They should compete for them.

They don't fix their wages at anything. They are offered an athletics scholarship, stipends, and can make as much money related to football that they want. The schools payment is in the form of, oftentimes, out of state tuition. To state schools that may not be a huge amount but to places like Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, etc. that's $200,000 or more over four years. Assume someone is pre-med, that takes a ton of pressure off as an adult.

Even for a state school in NC, these kids are exiting school $70,000 to $100,000 ahead of other STUDENTS.

They are playing school ball. Why do the Universities, as non-profits, have to pay anything above the scholarships? It's not like the NFL where owners take profit from earnings. The schools reinvest to better the program and the university which is what makes college athletics different from professional leagues.

People also make the argument that it's for entertainment. For some that may be the case but, again, college athletics is about representing the school, the brand, the state, the region, and yourself. Programs typically have kids relatively local to them and are the pride of that area. In a vacuum, it's akin to a weekly battle between different localities but on a field. It's not like the professional leagues where's its just a corporate entity with next to no local ties other than where they play competing.

The motivation is different.

But again, let's not act like scholarships aren't compensation. If they want to admit they are, let us tax them.

(12-19-2023 06:10 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 05:21 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 05:49 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 07:56 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  No one is forcing these people to play Football / Basketball. They are choosing to do this to themselves and they know the time and effort required to do so. They also have the choice to be a normal student, pay their own way, graduate and make a decent living.

All of this NIL and Transfer Portal and NFL aspirations... that's all their problem. Shouldn't be the school's problem and definitely shouldn't be the fan and alumna's problem. So if this all comes down to players are employees, then yank that scholarship and give it to someone that needs it.

No one is forcing FBS schools to sponsor FBS football. They do need to follow the law though.

Hey, you want to know something? Courts don't make laws. As things exist now, the colleges and universities have been following the laws. They've been following the laws as long as schools have been sponsoring athletics programs and offering scholarships which is to say that for 100+ years they have followed the law.

The only thing that changed is the jurisprudence. Find a left leaning court district and file a lawsuit. It's been the model for quite a long time. They will rule in favor of almost anything, no matter how ridiculous or incorrect.

If the Supreme Court decides to take up one of these cases, we may see some semblance of research and fairness. The lower courts just say "nope, NCAA can't do anything, can't make any rules, and can't enforce those rules that they try to make as it pertains to anything". By the new rulings, one could suggest that the NCAA rules regarding the football games themselves are unconstitutional because the NCAA doesn't have the power to make rules for it's member institutions.

So yes, they've been following the law which no one had a problem with until someone found the right judge.

What changed was the money. No one cared about finding the right court until roughly 70 of the 1,100 NCAA members started pulling in tens of millions of dollars in TV rights annually and paying coaches $5 million/year.

The other 1,030 of us are now caught in the crossfire.

So coaches pay taxes on their earnings and are not students. They are contracted with the school in the same way a professor is.

People keep confusing revenue with profit. Colleges and universities aren't put for profit. The athletics programs act as a mobile billboard for the university which helps drive advancement in their core competency which is, or should be, academics. All money is reinvested in someway rather than distributed to ownership or stakeholders.

If the players don't like that business model, they can go to the USFL or XFL. A college degree is worth the money you're being paid to get it as well as future earnings potential and its not the universities problem when thats not capitalized on.

The schools compensation model is based on scholarships and stipends. Athletes are free to make money in whatever other ways they want based on what was called name, image, and likeness but it's really just boosters.

You also can't claim anti-trust and say that prices are fixed because tuitions and other expenses vary.

They are compensated. They just don't like the compensation. They aren't employees of the school, they are students at the school. If you want to make them employees, you can no longer require them to also be students, you can't have eligibility limits, funding limits in terms of what would be akin to scholarship numbers, etc.

So what you're looking at is going to be a new NFL sponsored by universities. They will just be paid employees who are no different from coaches playing for a brand that is sponsored by athletics and the state taxpayers.

Based on rulings of courts on these issues, you can't tell me that they would also rule in favor of eligibility requirements based on grades, based on years in the programs, or even based on being students.

(12-20-2023 08:57 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 06:10 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  What changed was the money. No one cared about finding the right court until roughly 70 of the 1,100 NCAA members started pulling in tens of millions of dollars in TV rights annually and paying coaches $5 million/year.

The other 1,030 of us are now caught in the crossfire.

So coaches pay taxes on their earnings and are not students. They are contracted with the school in the same way a professor is.

People keep confusing revenue with profit. Colleges and universities aren't put for profit. The athletics programs act as a mobile billboard for the university which helps drive advancement in their core competency which is, or should be, academics. All money is reinvested in someway rather than distributed to ownership or stakeholders.

If the players don't like that business model, they can go to the USFL or XFL. A college degree is worth the money you're being paid to get it as well as future earnings potential and its not the universities problem when thats not capitalized on.

The schools compensation model is based on scholarships and stipends. Athletes are free to make money in whatever other ways they want based on what was called name, image, and likeness but it's really just boosters.

You also can't claim anti-trust and say that prices are fixed because tuitions and other expenses vary.

They are compensated. They just don't like the compensation. They aren't employees of the school, they are students at the school. If you want to make them employees, you can no longer require them to also be students, you can't have eligibility limits, funding limits in terms of what would be akin to scholarship numbers, etc.

So what you're looking at is going to be a new NFL sponsored by universities. They will just be paid employees who are no different from coaches playing for a brand that is sponsored by athletics and the state taxpayers.

Based on rulings of courts on these issues, you can't tell me that they would also rule in favor of eligibility requirements based on grades, based on years in the programs, or even based on being students.

That pretty well sums it up.

The only thing I’d add is decades of the schools themselves flouting the system with little-to-no consequence helped bring this along. It’s kinda hard to pound the “they’re students first” drum when you’ve been setting up fake classes to maintain their eligibility and turning a blind eye to signing bonuses and under-the-table payments for as long as anyone can remember.

(12-19-2023 06:10 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 05:21 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 05:49 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 07:56 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  No one is forcing these people to play Football / Basketball. They are choosing to do this to themselves and they know the time and effort required to do so. They also have the choice to be a normal student, pay their own way, graduate and make a decent living.

All of this NIL and Transfer Portal and NFL aspirations... that's all their problem. Shouldn't be the school's problem and definitely shouldn't be the fan and alumna's problem. So if this all comes down to players are employees, then yank that scholarship and give it to someone that needs it.

No one is forcing FBS schools to sponsor FBS football. They do need to follow the law though.

Hey, you want to know something? Courts don't make laws. As things exist now, the colleges and universities have been following the laws. They've been following the laws as long as schools have been sponsoring athletics programs and offering scholarships which is to say that for 100+ years they have followed the law.

The only thing that changed is the jurisprudence. Find a left leaning court district and file a lawsuit. It's been the model for quite a long time. They will rule in favor of almost anything, no matter how ridiculous or incorrect.

If the Supreme Court decides to take up one of these cases, we may see some semblance of research and fairness. The lower courts just say "nope, NCAA can't do anything, can't make any rules, and can't enforce those rules that they try to make as it pertains to anything". By the new rulings, one could suggest that the NCAA rules regarding the football games themselves are unconstitutional because the NCAA doesn't have the power to make rules for it's member institutions.

So yes, they've been following the law which no one had a problem with until someone found the right judge.

What changed was the money. No one cared about finding the right court until roughly 70 of the 1,100 NCAA members started pulling in tens of millions of dollars in TV rights annually and paying coaches $5 million/year.

The other 1,030 of us are now caught in the crossfire.

50 years ago the NCAA managed one media deal that combined all members. Under the justification of protecting amateurism, the NCAA restricted individual schools from earning money through their own media broadcasts. In 1984 universities claimed the right to negotiate their own media deals. They sued the NCAA claiming it acted an illegal trust. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the schools and granted them the ability to sell their own media rights to the highest bidder.

That case is the reason for the huge volume of TV money that flooded in. Before that, the entire NCAA was under one regulated media deal. And in my opinion that is the moment the NCAA became amateur in name only.

It seems obvious that if schools could claim the NCAA acted as an illegal trust by restricting their revenue, players could definitely argue the same. Either both sides are held to the same amateur standard or neither is.

And by the way, not sure where the claim that this is all based on “liberal” judges is coming from. When Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the NCAA and in favor of NIL in 2021, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote the judicial opinions.

(12-20-2023 08:49 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 05:48 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:01 AM)Johnnychimpo Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 04:28 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 02:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Blame the Power 5.

When the money exploded they could have said, "Oh wow this is cool, now we can send money over to academics to fund scholarships, research, faculty salaries and things like that in recognition of the fact the university spent money to create these programs long ago."

They didn't. Two and a half decades ago we got our first million a year head coach. Even adjusted for inflation, every P5 coach makes double that or more, few make 5 times as much. Money got plowed into facilities.

With that gross and excessive spending it became obvious that intercollegiate athletics had a lot of money and they were spending it wildly, except on players. The schools when viewed through the lens of the Sherman Anti-trust Act had banded together conspired to limit compensation for players while spending freely on coaching salaries, and with construction companies and on various amenities to attract players. Coaches got what the market would pay while the players they could get a better training table and more coaches to push them to train even harder.

Hell players got an even worse deal. Instead of the really old days when they showed up a week or two before school and finished withe the season, we moved to arrive a month to five weeks before school and give us a month in the spring to today when a player is really only excused from campus for about four weeks total over the year, less if they play in a bowl after around December 21.

So they don't get to compete for wages but they do have to do as directed for 47-49 weeks a year or lose their spot.

Just a week or two ago Department of Justice got a verdict against major egg producers for fixing the price of eggs. Well that's not far removed from the reality that Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, USC all compete for the services of football players, except they have agreed to not compete based on compensation. Yeah we now have NIL but university funds aren't supposed to go to NIL, instead we have this ridiculous tip jar system of people paying money into collectives to fund "NIL".

Compensation doesn’t have to be complicated. Paid fellowships are already a thing. I see no reason why athletic scholarships could not be upgraded to athletic resident fellowships.

This is not a comparable situation. My buddy is an ER pulmonary lung doctor specialist. He did not get paid during medical school or during his residency at all. It wasn’t until his last 2 years of his fellowship that he got paid a meager 60-70K/yr to work up to 80 hr weeks and that came after being out of pocket 30-40k yr in tuition the previous 10 years of med/residency school along with 4 yrs of undergrad.

Now that he is almost 40 he is finally making around 500K and that’s only because he just made partner for his hospital. Despite that he still is around 200K in debt for school. Contrary to popular belief not all MDs are making a cool 2 mill yr like Netflix advertises.

What is not comparable is that there is a cartel of 350 member schools that collectively block the players and collude to fix their wages at zero. That doesn’t happen to MDs, artists or any other student fellow because it’s patently illegal. The best medical programs offer generous fellowships because they are competing with each other to attract the best. NCAA schools collectively earn $1 billion annually and then collude to not compete with each other on paid incentives to players. No other industry gets away with this practice.

One of my favorite rock bands started as a passion project by graduate music students. Imagine if some cartel of 350 music schools blocked them from performing or transferring while enrolled. Any school would want to have famous musicians. They compete for them. Schools obviously want athletes too. They should compete for them.

They don't fix their wages at anything. They are offered an athletics scholarship, stipends, and can make as much money related to football that they want. The schools payment is in the form of, oftentimes, out of state tuition. To state schools that may not be a huge amount but to places like Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, etc. that's $200,000 or more over four years. Assume someone is pre-med, that takes a ton of pressure off as an adult.

Even for a state school in NC, these kids are exiting school $70,000 to $100,000 ahead of other STUDENTS.

They are playing school ball. Why do the Universities, as non-profits, have to pay anything above the scholarships? It's not like the NFL where owners take profit from earnings. The schools reinvest to better the program and the university which is what makes college athletics different from professional leagues.

People also make the argument that it's for entertainment. For some that may be the case but, again, college athletics is about representing the school, the brand, the state, the region, and yourself. Programs typically have kids relatively local to them and are the pride of that area. In a vacuum, it's akin to a weekly battle between different localities but on a field. It's not like the professional leagues where's its just a corporate entity with next to no local ties other than where they play competing.

The motivation is different.

But again, let's not act like scholarships aren't compensation. If they want to admit they are, let us tax them.

NCAA membership fix the compensation for athletes at the price of one athletic scholarship. They all agree not to compete with each other to offer higher compensation. An example of competition would be one school offering more than another. When it comes to graduate fellowships, Harvard pays their residents far more than the average public school. In sports, the NCAA forces Ohio State and Ohio U to both offer their athletes an equal deal.

Compensation in the form of free food or clothes or building new athletic facilities is not recognized under law. Even nonprofits have to pay their full time staff. Please show me the law if I am wrong.

‘It Could Not Have Gone Better’ For the Athletes: First Session of NCAA Athlete Employment Trial Concludes

The National College Players Association is in court this week.

How do you justify tax deduction as a charitable activity intercollegiate athletic departments paying 8 figure coaching salaries, or high 7 figures or paying athletes more than full cost of attendance?

If Yella Wood dude wants to give millions for Auburn to play pro football that is his business but I don't see how you justify the United States Treasury picking up $370,000 of a million dollar donation to fund pro athletics.

(12-18-2023 07:56 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  No one is forcing these people to play Football / Basketball. They are choosing to do this to themselves and they know the time and effort required to do so. They also have the choice to be a normal student, pay their own way, graduate and make a decent living.

All of this NIL and Transfer Portal and NFL aspirations... that's all their problem. Shouldn't be the school's problem and definitely shouldn't be the fan and alumna's problem. So if this all comes down to players are employees, then yank that scholarship and give it to someone that needs it.

That logic just absolutely fails when a "charitable organization" generates $150 million a year, pays the head coach $10 million a year and the offensive coordinator gets $2 million a year. Two people making a combined $4 million more than the 400 athletes on the rosters of all the sports at the school.

Players are PAID. The ones in head count sports before NIL got tuition, books, fees, meals, and lodging and a stipend not to exceed the estimated full cost of attendance.

The schools all sat down and determined what the maximum compensation could be. Over the decades they've added, subtracted, and added compensation that can be extended for agreeing to play football.

Hell my nephew attended a fairly well respected school and could have attended even better respected school he chose the fairly well respected school because they gave him a scholarship package worth more than what he could have been given had he been an athlete. The two schools he narrowed his interest to competed to have him as a student by offering various packages. Yet, schools agreed (conspired) to cap athlete compensation even though a stud basketball player can generate an extra $2 million (over six years) just by hitting a clutch shot to advance one round in the NCAA Tournament. Florida State's QB getting hurt cost Florida State $2 million, if Florida State had lost the ACC title game because of that injury, subtract another $4 million. That's before considering the impact on ticket sales, donations, or the next TV deal.

(12-18-2023 07:56 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  No one is forcing these people to play Football / Basketball. They are choosing to do this to themselves and they know the time and effort required to do so. They also have the choice to be a normal student, pay their own way, graduate and make a decent living.

All of this NIL and Transfer Portal and NFL aspirations... that's all their problem. Shouldn't be the school's problem and definitely shouldn't be the fan and alumna's problem. So if this all comes down to players are employees, then yank that scholarship and give it to someone that needs it.

Remove the requirement for an athlete to attend college before turning procin all the sports. If the athlete is good enough to be in the pros, let them. Maybe that will cut down on some of the craziness.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk