NCAA to Allow Players to be Compensated for their Names, Likenesses, and Images

[Machinator 32097]

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Machinator

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Machinator

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Richard Kimball 1492]

12 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

First of all, nice job on grabbing all the tweets. 

Barrett brings up the thing that's going to be the next round of lawsuits, Title IX. 

There are currently two college sports that actually produce revenue, football and men's basketball. Whatever is decided, it will probably take about a week for there to be Title IX lawsuits over female basketball players getting less money than the men. 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

Edited March 31, 2021 by Machinator

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Richard Kimball 1492]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:58 AM, Machinator said:

 

May be a side point, but the NCAA doesn't make laws. They have no legal authority, and are strictly an association. 

The maximum thing they can do is kick someone out of the NCAA. 

They can't issue subpoenas or require someone to testify. 

Nobody is breaking a law if they violate NCAA rules about player compensation. The only way a player could get in legal trouble is if they don't declare it on their taxes. 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

1 minute ago, Richard Kimball said:

May be a side point, but the NCAA doesn't make laws. They have no legal authority, and are strictly an association. 

The maximum thing they can do is kick someone out of the NCAA. 

They can't issue subpoenas or require someone to testify. 

Nobody is breaking a law if they violate NCAA rules about player compensation. The only way a player could get in legal trouble is if they don't declare it on their taxes. 

I thought a while back some states made it illegal for the outside party (boosters and such) if caught.

[BurntOrange&White 39618]

3 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

Never, EVER bet against SCOTUS ruling against big business. 

[Ricky's one-hitter 9084]

20 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

Just an absolutely bizarre argument. "Our product is wage fixing, therefore wage fixing rules do not apply to us." 

[CooterBrown 17904]

We may be headed to that rare 9-0 Supreme Court vote. Maybe 8-1 just so someone can write a dissent for posterity's sake.

 

[Richard Kimball 1492]

2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I thought a while back some states made it illegal for the outside party (boosters and such) if caught.

That's possible, but unless a state adopts, through the legislative process, NCAA rules as state law, the NCAA rulings carry no legal weight. All they can do is limit scholarships, etc, and if a school says "No, we're not following your rulings," all the NCAA can do is kick them out and threaten member NCAA schools if they play them. 

19 minutes ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

Just an absolutely bizarre argument. "Our product is wage fixing, therefore wage fixing rules do not apply to us." 

Depending on the ruling, this could end up creating "Prestige Worldwide." 

There's only so many schools with boosters that care enough and have deep enough pockets to pay players. If it turns into a bidding war, even some traditionally solid schools could have trouble keeping up. Imagine Oregon offering a guaranteed contract with Nike for everyone that signs with the Ducks. 

Nationwide, there are probably only about 25 schools that could keep up if it goes full wild west. 

Right now, probably 20% of schools are making money off athletics, and the rest are dumping money into athletics trying to turn a profit. 

[pops 6973]

11 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

We may be headed to that rare 9-0 Supreme Court vote. Maybe 8-1 just so someone can write a dissent for posterity's sake.

 

But which way. At first I thought it was all going for the players. By the end I'm not sure. I know questions from the scouts are impossible to read into so who knows. 

If I were the ncaa counsel I would have pounded the argument that pay for pay will destroy competition as maybe 10 to 15 schools would actually be able to afford to pay their players and many schools would simply drop sports because there is no point. May be bullshit, but it seems like better bullshit than what they tried to sell today. 

I think the biggest problem for the players is the 9th circuit ruling is garbage and I can see the Supremes not upholding. 

[CooterBrown 17904]

7 minutes ago, pops said:

But which way. At first I thought it was all going for the players. By the end I'm not sure. I know questions from the scouts are impossible to read into so who knows. 

If I were the ncaa counsel I would have pounded the argument that pay for pay will destroy competition as maybe 10 to 15 schools would actually be able to afford to pay their players and many schools would simply drop sports because there is no point. May be bullshit, but it seems like better bullshit than what they tried to sell today. 

I think the biggest problem for the players is the 9th circuit ruling is garbage and I can see the Supremes not upholding. 

The one sticking point that I think all justices may have a problem with is that "amateurism" is worth denying player rights.  Not much of a leap there to justifying slavery because the cotton industry was worth protecting.

Regardless, of what you think about any of the justices' politics, they're all smart enough to know that amateurism does not really exist in any sport. It's a hollow argument.

Edited March 31, 2021 by CooterBrown

[Dr. Teeth 5830]

41 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

Is this legal analysis written in $9.95 speak as a joke?

[Machinator 32097]

[Jhawk 1075]

What I took from this is that the ncaa is so incompetent that their argument is “we’ve been incompetent for this long, why stop it now?” Pretty incredible an actual attorney has the balls to argue that point in the highest court. 
 

I don’t know the lower ruling but it seems to me that unlimited educational benefits should be a slam dunk for the students. In theory, we already have students bargaining just by choosing which school to attend. I can’t see how an argument of “we’ll let them bargain but only to a certain extent” will ever hold up. That seems textbook against the law to me but I’m not a lawyer. 

[BornOrange 1441]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

The one sticking point that I think all justices may have a problem with is that "amateurism" is worth denying player rights.  Not much of a leap there to justifying slavery because the cotton industry was worth protecting.

Regardless, of what you think about any of the justices' politics, they're all smart enough to know that amateurism does not really exist in any sport. It's a hollow argument.

Wow.

[Machinator 32097]

 

[Jhawk 1075]

We saw the justices ask if they were inviting trouble by ruling for the players but I wish they asked about the pendulum swinging the other direction. The justices seem to believe the players are a labor pool. If they rule in favor of letting the ncaa govern its own restrictions on benefits, what would that mean for player benefits? I guarantee they won’t be increasing and the door would be open for them to decrease without recourse since the high court already ruled that the ncaa can do what it wants. When you break down the implications of this case it will be absolutely devastating for one group or the other. I hope it’s the ncaa. 

[Machinator 32097]

 

[UncleSonny 6524]

 

Big day for Nebraska at least.

[Jkwellborn 6653]

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like there are more important things to be pissing away the Supreme Courts time with. If the schools wanted to play dirty and thumb their nose at the NCAA, they would. If someone thought there was money in paying HS kids to play football professionally in a developmental league, we’d have one to compete with the college set up.

When am I getting my NCAA football game back? That’s all I care about.

[notre dame joe 172]

 

11 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

I didn't watch the entire oral argument, but I though the strongest one was the players' attorney listing all of the times the NCAA argued in Court that their sport would be destroyed.  They lost each case but college sports is still very popular. 

[n64ra 1076]

Justice Clarence Thomas: “It strikes me as odd that coaches’ salaries have ballooned and they are in the amateur ranks, as are the players.”

 

What college coaches are considered amateur ?

Edited April 1, 2021 by n64ra

[freyguy 4245]

7 minutes ago, n64ra said:

Justice Clarence Thomas: “It strikes me as odd that coaches’ salaries have ballooned and they are in the amateur ranks, as are the players.”

 

What college coaches are considered amateur ?

you really gotta ask?