SCOTUS ruling today went far beyond NIL for the near future of the "college model"

dtodd4475

All-ACC
Jul 17, 2005
1,788
1,393
113
Reading Kavanaugh's concurrent opinion in the overwhelmong 9-0 decision is eye-opening. He is a staunch conservative, and he went HARD on the "college model". Basically laying out that the only problem in this case was that it was not broad enough to strike down all of the exploitive practices throughout the system.

He basically said go file for the other restrictive parts right away, they have no case for any of it, it just has to be officially filed to be easily struck down as well.
 
Last edited:

tarheel0910

Hall of Famer
Jun 24, 2011
23,217
27,874
113
Atlanta
Technically the case wasn't about NIL, it was about additional educational expenses (educational equipment, study abroad programs, internships, etc). Obviously that does have an impact for future rulings on NIL if the NCAA choses to go to court over NIL.
 

dtodd4475

All-ACC
Jul 17, 2005
1,788
1,393
113
Read his concurrent opinion though. He states it is classic anti trust violations for the entire system. Wage fixing. That the NCAA is not above the law of the land. That arguing that a history and tradition based on exploitive terms to generate billions is no argument whatsoever. He specifically and in detail identifies how this is about athletics.

He goes on to say they are also on the hook for future anti trust suits for their other restrictions, basicallypleading to go file as this was not broadenough in scope erase all the anti trust parts of "the college model".

Eye opening to me as this concurrent opinion comes from Kavenaugh a conservative justice.
I agree this ruling goes WAY further then the NIL issue.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
Read his concurrent opinion though. He states it is classic anti trust violations for the entire system. Wage fixing. That the NCAA is not above the law of the land. That arguing that a history and tradition based on exploitive terms to generate billions is no argument whatsoever.

He goes on to say they are the also on the hook for future anti trust suits for their other restrictions. Eye opening to me as this concurrent opinion comes from Kavenaugh a conservative justice.

I agree this ruling goes WAY further then the NIL issue.
I am amazed that our supposedly more outstanding legal minds can't see the forest for the trees. College scholarship athletes are paid...paid with the education that's there for the taking. And how can it be price-fixing when every school has its own value? There's nothing wrong with the way things are being handled other than the fact that no one will acknowledge the obvious, and that is that scholarship athletes are paid to perform a task that benefits the schools, and the schools compensate with an education which is the currency they deal in. The only thing that needs fixing here is the ridiculously hypocritical notion of the amateur scholar-athlete which the NCAA goes to nonsensical lengths to prop up.
 

dtodd4475

All-ACC
Jul 17, 2005
1,788
1,393
113
I am amazed that our supposedly more outstanding legal minds can't see the forest for the trees. College scholarship athletes are paid...paid with the education that's there for the taking. And how can it be price-fixing when every school has its own value? There's nothing wrong with the way things are being handled other than the fact that no one will acknowledge the obvious, and that is that scholarship athletes are paid to perform a task that benefits the schools, and the schools compensate with an education which is the currency they deal in. The only thing that needs fixing here is the ridiculously hypocritical notion of the amateur scholar-athlete which the NCAA goes to nonsensical lengths to prop up.
If they drop the nonsensical amateur notion then they are employees though. That makes all these limits clear anti trust violations or wage fixing/ capping.

I think you are actually arguing against the "way things are currently handled". If they drop the amateur shtick then the system is clearly illegal as run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RP12 and TPFKAPFS

Heelicious

Hall of Famer
May 12, 2005
6,358
3,461
113
Read his concurrent opinion though. He states it is classic anti trust violations for the entire system. Wage fixing. That the NCAA is not above the law of the land. That arguing that a history and tradition based on exploitive terms to generate billions is no argument whatsoever. He specifically and in detail identifies how this is about athletics.

He goes on to say they are also on the hook for future anti trust suits for their other restrictions, basicallypleading to go file as this was not broadenough in scope erase all the anti trust parts of "the college model".

Eye opening to me as this concurrent opinion comes from Kavenaugh a conservative justice.
I agree this ruling goes WAY further then the NIL issue.
Kavanaugh did come down pretty hard on the NCAA - quite a black eye for them. To get a 9-0 ruling is quite rare, except for cases with obvious serious wrong arguments or positions (like the NCAA has here).

I am not sure why Kavanaugh coming out against the NCAA "big $ guys establishment" is surprising. Instead of labeling judges as conservative or liberal, I think it is more accurate to label them on a spectrum from : originalist / constructionist to " living breathing constitution that is ever evolving" .

BK is a strict constructionist.

Which makes sense in this instance for him to write what he did. His stance is all about fighting for the parties having individual (free market capitalism) rights violated, at the hands of a big (incompetent) establishment in the NCAA, with a monopoly in college sports, that allows the schools (and NCAA big wigs, TV companies, etc) to make billions...

while most of the players (employees) get paid (only) their scholarship. It is arguable that this isn't a fair payment compared to the revenue they generate, strictly speaking only for the major revenue sports (men's D1 college basketball and men's D1 college football)
 

tarheel0910

Hall of Famer
Jun 24, 2011
23,217
27,874
113
Atlanta
while most of the players (employees) get paid (only) their scholarship. It is arguable that this isn't a fair payment compared to the revenue they generate, strictly speaking only for the major revenue sports (men's D1 college basketball and men's D1 college football)
Not to mention that the schools are putting these restrictions in place just for athletes. No other scholarship student has those restrictions.
 

Heelicious

Hall of Famer
May 12, 2005
6,358
3,461
113
I wonder what would happen if schools stopped giving any scholarships for athletes.
Interesting question!

If we play it out, at least for the big money generating sports, the best athletes would likely go directly to a pro or semi-pro league.

Also - maybe many of these athletes' families wouldn't necessarily have the financial means to send their kid to a $50K+ / year school; and what would these student athletes study, that would make it worth the $50K+ per year?

Setting sports and student/athletes aside, I believe you'll see a lot of colleges close down over next ten years, due to a lot of students seeing that they are in a better position learning a trade, or going to community college - as a path to a good paying job, without the 6 figure debt after graduation, with maybe no clear job path to pay back that debt anytime soon.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
If they drop the nonsensical amateur notion then they are employees though. That makes all these limits clear anti trust violations or wage fixing/ capping.

I think you are actually arguing against the "way things are currently handled". If they drop the amateur shtick then the system is clearly illegal as run.
you apparently don't read so well. The bolded is exactly what I'm saying. The athletes perform a service that benefits the schools, the schools compensate with a valuable consideration, an education. If Acme Widgets hires you to make widgets, you get paid a valuable consideration for making the widgets and Acme Widgets makes money from selling those widgets AND exploiting the popularity of them and other uses of them beyond the primary. If Acme decides to sell 'ACME WIDGET' t-shirts, they don't owe you anything extra.

The way you choose to see things doesn't alter reality.

A scholarship athlete is not a student-athlete, because that connotes a student who has been selected to be an athlete. That isn't the case. The scholarship athlete is an athlete recruited to perform an athletic task and as such is then compensated with the potential of an education. How is that essentially different from any employee/employer arrangement? And how can wage-fixing be involved when, as I said, each school has it's own value assigned to the education they provide? Acme can pay all their employees the same wage, and they are free to provide benefits that match what other companies provide. What they can't do is conspire with other companies to fix the wage.

That dropping the amateur nonsense would make the system illegal as run is kinda...well, duh. Just like realizing that I'm railing against the way things are done is well, duh. What I'm saying is that when adjustments are made in recognition of an employer/employee (subcontract maybe) reality, we can still enjoy college athletics as we do now.

ETA; and most importantly, we would be free of the NCAA's idiotic rules against sleeping on a friends sofa for free or getting a free ride from the airport, under the threat of having games taken off the record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncfootball-

dtodd4475

All-ACC
Jul 17, 2005
1,788
1,393
113
you apparently don't read so well. The bolded is exactly what I'm saying. The athletes perform a service that benefits the schools, the schools compensate with a valuable consideration, an education. If Acme Widgets hires you to make widgets, you get paid a valuable consideration for making the widgets and Acme Widgets makes money from selling those widgets AND exploiting the popularity of them and other uses of them beyond the primary. If Acme decides to sell 'ACME WIDGET' t-shirts, they don't owe you anything extra.

The way you choose to see things doesn't alter reality.

A scholarship athlete is not a student-athlete, because that connotes a student who has been selected to be an athlete. That isn't the case. The scholarship athlete is an athlete recruited to perform an athletic task and as such is then compensated with the potential of an education. How is that essentially different from any employee/employer arrangement? And how can wage-fixing be involved when, as I said, each school has it's own value assigned to the education they provide? Acme can pay all their employees the same wage, and they are free to provide benefits that match what other companies provide. What they can't do is conspire with other companies to fix the wage.

That dropping the amateur nonsense would make the system illegal as run is kinda...well, duh. Just like realizing that I'm railing against the way things are done is well, duh. What I'm saying is that when adjustments are made in recognition of an employer/employee (subcontract maybe) reality, we can still enjoy college athletics as we do now.

ETA; and most importantly, we would be free of the NCAA's idiotic rules against sleeping on a friends sofa for free or getting a free ride from the airport, under the threat of having games taken off the record.
Kavenaugh directly addressed that in his opinion. He actually gave an example. He used cooks as the example. Restaurants owners cannot collude to limit wages by saying that customers are only interested in eating food from low paid cooks.

If they are being paid as you and Kavenaugh contend for their service, then the industry cannot collude to hold down wages in the free market. Once again I think you are agreeing with Kavenaugh, if you read his concurrent opinion, he is saying they are being paid for a service, like you are. Hence anti trust laws apply when collectively holding down the wages in the free market, as well as a multitude of other rules they currently use which he clearly states they are on the hook for once filed for in the future as well.

If they are seen as employees, the current system is clearly illegal and must abide by anti trust laws, like "Acme Widgets" would be held up to or any other industry. Which is not the case in the current system used at all.
 
Last edited:

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
Except ACME WIDGET doesn't prevent you from getting a second job. The NCAA/schools are currently saying you can't go get a second job. There is really no rational reason to tell a player he can't get paid for making a YouTube video or setting up a basketball camp.
neither does UNC or any other school. Plenty of athletes have outside jobs other than their athletic duties, or even other jobs at the same school. You didn't know that? If there are conflicts of interest, those can be worked out along with a lot of other details. Meanwhile consider this...would Ford Motor Company allow one of its engineers to start a company teaching people how to design and build a car and start a manufacturing plant?
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
Kavenaugh directly addressed that in his opinion. He actually gave an example. He used cooks as the example. Restaurants owners cannot collude to limit wages by saying that customers are only interested in eating food from low paid cooks.

If they are being paid as you and Kavenaugh contend for their service, then the industry cannot collude to hold down wages in the free market. Once again I think you are agreeing with Kavenaugh, if you read his concurrent opinion, he is saying they are being paid for a service, like you are. Hence anti trust laws apply when collectively holding down the wages in the free market, as well as a multitude of other rules they currently use which he clearly states they are on the hook for once filed for in the future as well.

If they are seen as employees, the current system is clearly illegal and must abide by anti trust laws, like "Acme Widgets" would be held up to or any other industry. Which is not the case in the current system used at all.
you still aren't comprehending, or maybe even reading what I posted. It doesn't matter how much the schools or companies make on the labor of their employees as long as no one is forcing the employee to work at a particular place for a particular wage. The price of an education at dook is not the price of an education at Campbell because the WORTH of an education at dook is not what it is at Campbell. On the other hand, the price of an education at UNC for a resident is by comparison a huge bargain compared to either based on both quality and quantity.

So where the F is this wage-fixing you keep dwelling on? Is every education the same in your mind? Is it all the same cost?

Kavenaugh says, like most who disagree with not paying student-athletes beyond an education, that it isn't fair to reap so much benefit on the backs of such little compensation. This used to be a free country, where I could offer you what I wanted to offer and you were free to accept it or decline it.

If you want to argue that athletes who aspire to professional status are too limited in their choices, that's another discussion altogether. But limited choices doesn't mean that the choices available are wrong FOR making a choice available.
 
Sep 30, 2016
29
40
13
you apparently don't read so well. The bolded is exactly what I'm saying. The athletes perform a service that benefits the schools, the schools compensate with a valuable consideration, an education. If Acme Widgets hires you to make widgets, you get paid a valuable consideration for making the widgets and Acme Widgets makes money from selling those widgets AND exploiting the popularity of them and other uses of them beyond the primary. If Acme decides to sell 'ACME WIDGET' t-shirts, they don't owe you anything extra.

The way you choose to see things doesn't alter reality.

A scholarship athlete is not a student-athlete, because that connotes a student who has been selected to be an athlete. That isn't the case. The scholarship athlete is an athlete recruited to perform an athletic task and as such is then compensated with the potential of an education. How is that essentially different from any employee/employer arrangement? And how can wage-fixing be involved when, as I said, each school has it's own value assigned to the education they provide? Acme can pay all their employees the same wage, and they are free to provide benefits that match what other companies provide. What they can't do is conspire with other companies to fix the wage.

That dropping the amateur nonsense would make the system illegal as run is kinda...well, duh. Just like realizing that I'm railing against the way things are done is well, duh. What I'm saying is that when adjustments are made in recognition of an employer/employee (subcontract maybe) reality, we can still enjoy college athletics as we do now.

ETA; and most importantly, we would be free of the NCAA's idiotic rules against sleeping on a friends sofa for free or getting a free ride from the airport, under the threat of having games taken off the record.

No we want because we have an expectation of an employee.

If they dont perform they should be terminated immediately.

Were are going to ruin college sports for just a few people.
 

dtodd4475

All-ACC
Jul 17, 2005
1,788
1,393
113
you still aren't comprehending, or maybe even reading what I posted. It doesn't matter how much the schools or companies make on the labor of their employees as long as no one is forcing the employee to work at a particular place for a particular wage. The price of an education at dook is not the price of an education at Campbell because the WORTH of an education at dook is not what it is at Campbell. On the other hand, the price of an education at UNC for a resident is by comparison a huge bargain compared to either based on both quality and quantity.

So where the F is this wage-fixing you keep dwelling on? Is every education the same in your mind? Is it all the same cost?

Kavenaugh says, like most who disagree with not paying student-athletes beyond an education, that it isn't fair to reap so much benefit on the backs of such little compensation. This used to be a free country, where I could offer you what I wanted to offer and you were free to accept it or decline it.

If you want to argue that athletes who aspire to professional status are too limited in their choices, that's another discussion altogether. But limited choices doesn't mean that the choices available are wrong FOR making a choice available.
The case you are making is the case those who brought the case against the NCAA claiming the business laws do should not apply to them though. It resulted in a rare unanimous 9-0 vote, with scathing opinions from all ends of the of the court that they were not above the law for a business. The NCAA tried to argue it is not a business or ran as one, they are only students.

Free market and anti trust laws apply to employees industry wide. The NCAA needed to justify being able to limit the earning opportunities on a industry level, and why they were not a business with employees. If they are employees as you contend, and I agree, it was a clear, rare, easy, 9-0 vote to apply the laws as all industries must.

The thing that surprised me is how overwhelming the agreement is, and like the title of the thread mentioned, and was my point, this no doubt ruling openly calls for many more suits. With the colleges having to abide by anti trust laws like all other industries/businesses now. Seems like that is what you want, same rules as the rest.
 
Last edited:

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
Oh good…more shit to ruin college sports. Awesome.
I have no desire to substantially change the way we enjoy college sports. What I would like to do away with though is the NCAA's ongoing struggle to impose idiotic restrictions on athletes merely in order to uphold the facade of amateurism that allows the schools to make bank. And I'm not against the schools making bank, I'm against the hypocritical foolishness that allows them to play the games that make it happen for them.

When I say restrictions, I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about the stupid rules that allow them to pretend that college athletes are amateurs.
 

gunslingerdick

Hall of Famer
Feb 16, 2006
32,940
19,492
113
This used to be a free country, where I could offer you what I wanted to offer and you were free to accept it or decline it.

Boom. It should be that way. When it was, more people were appreciative just to have work..,until other people told them they should be pissed about it.

The schools could simply hike up the cost of tuition and frankly, I wouldn’t blame them. Make tuition $150k per year and then maybe it’s found to be more “equitable”. Or the athletic department could value the athlete specific dorms and dining halls at double what the ones for regular students are and then claim the cost of the athletes to be there is then “equitable”. I don’t care because a college education is more worthless by the day and I’ve already been so it won’t effect me. It just sticks in my craw that a bunch of entitled teenagers are going to win this debate.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
The case you are making is the case those who brought the case against the NCAA claiming the business laws do should not apply to them though. It resulted in a rare unanimous 9-0 vote, with scathing opinions from all ends of the of the court that they were not above the law for a business. The NCAA tried to argue it is not a business or ran as one, they are only students.

Free market and anti trust laws apply to employees industry wide. The NCAA needed to justify being able to limit the earning opportunities on a industry level, and why they were not a business with employees. If they are employees as you contend, and I agree, it was a clear, rare easy, 9-0 vote to apply the laws as all industries must.

The thing that surprised me is how overwhelming the agreement is, and like the title of the thread mentioned, and was my point, this no doubt ruling openly calls for many more suits. With the colleges having to abide by anti trust laws like all other industries/businesses. Seems like that is what you want, same rules as the rest.
"The case you are making is the case those who brought the case against the NCAA claiming the business laws do should not apply to them though. It resulted in a rare unanimous 9-0 vote, with scathing opinions from all ends of the of the court that they were not above the law for a business. The NCAA tried to argue it is not a business or ran as one, they are only students."

the above is a little hard for me to follow.

I am of the mind that there is an employer/employee relationship between schools and student-athletes. I am also of the mind that the NCAA goes to extremes to uphold the notion of amateurism, where de facto amateurism does not exist. That is, they of course deny being a business because in order to maintain the status quo, they have to; and in many ways they are correct...but they have a business type relationship with the SA's that they must try to deny; and I have been saying for years that it is a house of cards that ultimately has to come tumbling down because it's frankly bullshit. Allowing the SA's to garner any compensation beyond their education is like exposing the foundation to a crew with jackhammers, so they're fighting it tooth and nail.

One thing that is probably causing some misunderstanding is that I don't consider the NCAA to be a standalone entity. It is a member organization representing the wishes of the member schools. The NCAA itself isn't a business (as applies here anyway), but the represented schools definitely are.

That being said, I think the schools are well within the law, and any reasonable concept of fairness, to offer basically what they have been offering as compensation. I don't think that the schools should be bound by someone's socialistic notion of 'fairness'. Fair is what you freely agree or NOT agree to. THAT is where I have the issue with the SCOTUS. Make the schools stop hiding behind false amateurism, but then just mind some other business.
 

dtodd4475

All-ACC
Jul 17, 2005
1,788
1,393
113
Fair enough I think the court went against a socialistic notion that they can limit workers earning in a free market economy. That is why they had to fight so hard to make the hard to make argument that they are not employees.

Once they are seen as providing a service for compensation the industry must follow the law. The decision couldn't be more agreed upon. Unanimous from all justices, upholding the previous levels of courts decisions all the way through, with very strongly worded opinions.

The decision all made is clear. Your stance is the plaintiff lawyers stance, and the court agreed. They are being provided compensation for a service. That means they must abide by the laws of the land, and cannot say working for their profit and only with their permission for any other service whatsoever is the ONLY way they can earn anything else, or receive any benifits.

Again it is the law, and with the strong, clear opinions more is coming.
 

tarheel0910

Hall of Famer
Jun 24, 2011
23,217
27,874
113
Atlanta
I am curious to see what happens when the star quarterback and running back are making good money from the NIL deal while the left guard is not getting a dime.
Well, there is already a difference between how they are treated. How many times do you see that LG get featured on ESPN or doing high profile interviews? Ever see schools have a $100k plus Heisman campaign for the LG? If they don't like it or can't get over their jealousy, then find something else to do. My guess is it won't be an issue.

ETA: And there are ways the LG can make money. It won't be the same amount obviously but that's how the world works.
 

uncfootball-

Senior
Aug 2, 2019
1,408
1,141
113
North Carolina
Well, there is already a difference between how they are treated. How many times do you see that LG get featured on ESPN or doing high profile interviews? Ever see schools have a $100k plus Heisman campaign for the LG? If they don't like it or can't get over their jealousy, then find something else to do. My guess is it won't be an issue.

ETA: And there are ways the LG can make money. It won't be the same amount obviously but that's how the world works.

So how well do you think that QB or RB would do without an offensive line? Just for fun how about line up with 11 on the field next year with a QB, 5 Running backs and 5 receivers. Try that out for a series or two and see how well they move the ball.
 

tarheel0910

Hall of Famer
Jun 24, 2011
23,217
27,874
113
Atlanta
So how well do you think that QB or RB would do without an offensive line? Just for fun how about line up with 11 on the field next year with a QB, 5 Running backs and 5 receivers. Try that out for a series or two and see how well they move the ball.
I'm not arguing that they aren't important on the field, just that there is already a gap. That's just the real world. Not all computer programmers are paid the same. That's the consequences of a free market. You get paid what you're worth. The free market has determined that a QB and RB are more important. Go ask ESPN to feature the LG more and maybe things will change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtodd4475
Oct 15, 2004
8
8
3
I really feel like this is the beginning of the end of college sports which bring so much joy to so many. Allowing educational benefits will be the opening of Pandora’s box. Musicale instruments allowed??? I can see Duke offering up the NY philharmonic to the next 5 start recruit. And overseas benefits translates to me of Kentucky offering lifetime villas in the south of France. I could keep going but won’t. Too depressing. The rich schools will benefit, the fans will be lost, and the recruitment of players will be worse than ever imaginable. And I so enjoyed college sports in the past. Oh well, maybe fake wrestling will take its place and I can still enjoy some aspect of sports. .
 

uncfootball-

Senior
Aug 2, 2019
1,408
1,141
113
North Carolina
I really feel like this is the beginning of the end of college sports which bring so much joy to so many. Allowing educational benefits will be the opening of Pandora’s box. Musicale instruments allowed??? I can see Duke offering up the NY philharmonic to the next 5 start recruit. And overseas benefits translates to me of Kentucky offering lifetime villas in the south of France. I could keep going but won’t. Too depressing. The rich schools will benefit, the fans will be lost, and the recruitment of players will be worse than ever imaginable. And I so enjoyed college sports in the past. Oh well, maybe fake wrestling will take its place and I can still enjoy some aspect of sports. .

Yep.. schools that have the fans with the most money will get the best players and it will be legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyinVA

JimmyinVA

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
2,152
814
113
Yep.. schools that have the fans with the most money will get the best players and it will be legal.
yep, recruiting will soon be bidding wars. the NFL and NBA protect themselves against that with draft, salary caps, etc. how will colleges keep a lid on it, or will they? by the same reasoning the pro draft and salary restrictions are illegal. players should be free to play where they want, and bargaining/bidding for players should be unrestricted. why should high school recruits and college players have more rights than pros?
 

gauchoheel

All-American
Jul 29, 2016
2,620
1,870
113
Read his concurrent opinion though. He states it is classic anti trust violations for the entire system. Wage fixing. That the NCAA is not above the law of the land.
Good! Long past time.
I am amazed that our supposedly more outstanding legal minds can't see the forest for the trees. College scholarship athletes are paid...paid with the education that's there for the taking. And how can it be price-fixing when every school has its own value?
It is price fixing; the cartel members agree on a set capped price with penalties if anyone tries to go beyond that "by paying players additional cash". It's not a free market system at all, and would totally unravel without strict collusion from the cartel members (it already basically has, as most P5 schools pay players under the table anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
Good! Long past time.

It is price fixing; the cartel members agree on a set capped price with penalties if anyone tries to go beyond that "by paying players additional cash". It's not a free market system at all, and would totally unravel without strict collusion from the cartel members (it already basically has, as most P5 schools pay players under the table anyway).
except there is no 'set capped price' when each school offers its own distinct value, on which there is no theoretical limit. And our market system is itself not truly a free market system; there are controls and limits galore. Ever heard of salary caps in pro sports? In the case of the NCAA, the agreement is not as much about how well the athlete is compensated, but in what manner. These are educational institutions, and their currency is education. There is no collusion between schools, either through or outside of the NCAA, that the value of what they offer must be equal all across the board. They individually offer what they have to offer and the athlete chooses to accept or decline the offer. Freedom of choice. 'merica.

Membership in the NCAA is not mandatory, it is voluntary. Any member is free to go its own way and pay athletes cash to play sports for them. That might be what ends up happening, but it will ruin college sports and if it does, it will be because of the pervasive wrongheadedness that is currently wracking the country.
 

uncfootball-

Senior
Aug 2, 2019
1,408
1,141
113
North Carolina
Good! Long past time.

It is price fixing; the cartel members agree on a set capped price with penalties if anyone tries to go beyond that "by paying players additional cash". It's not a free market system at all, and would totally unravel without strict collusion from the cartel members (it already basically has, as most P5 schools pay players under the table anyway).

How is it price fixing when not all scholarships are worth the same amount?
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
yep, recruiting will soon be bidding wars. the NFL and NBA protect themselves against that with draft, salary caps, etc. how will colleges keep a lid on it, or will they? by the same reasoning the pro draft and salary restrictions are illegal. players should be free to play where they want, and bargaining/bidding for players should be unrestricted. why should high school recruits and college players have more rights than pros?
so pro sports are allowed to impose caps and limits and requirements on participating teams but college teams should not be allowed to do so. Is that reasonable? What if entities voluntarily form a group that imposes certain voluntarily accepted requirements on its members, and those who wish to gain employment under those conditions are free to either do so or not do so? This just seems logical to me, so there must be a flaw in my reasoning. Oh wait, now I see....this is the country of have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes I forget.
 

JimmyinVA

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
2,152
814
113
so pro sports are allowed to impose caps and limits and requirements on participating teams but college teams should not be allowed to do so. Is that reasonable? What if entities voluntarily form a group that imposes certain voluntarily accepted requirements on its members, and those who wish to gain employment under those conditions are free to either do so or not do so? This just seems logical to me, so there must be a flaw in my reasoning. Oh wait, now I see....this is the country of have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes I forget.
well-said!
 

MWHeels

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2008
6,494
3,590
113
I hate to say it, but I worry about the future of college sports. These are tough issues, and I don't think the NCAA has the leadership to successfully manage all of the challenges.
 
Last edited:

TPFKAPFS

Hall of Famer
Feb 17, 2006
9,309
5,777
113
Pro sports impose caps WITH representation and agreement of the employees! They bargain, negotiate, and then vote on the proposals before they can be implemented! Pro athletes have unions that require a quid pro quo before accepting changes to their pay structure! If they allows college athletes to come to the bargaining table, then they can legally negotiate earning restrictions!
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
9,283
1,994
113
Pro sports impose caps WITH representation and agreement of the employees! They bargain, negotiate, and then vote on the proposals before they can be implemented! Pro athletes have unions that require a quid pro quo before accepting changes to their pay structure! If they allows college athletes to come to the bargaining table, then they can legally negotiate earning restrictions!
To me that's like saying that your hamster is allowed to go anywhere and do anything it wants to inside its cage, except for the places it can't go and the things it isn't allowed to do.... and it gets to vote on what those things are.

That's what I want, a deal where I'm allowed to negotiate...for freedom restrictions. I don't know what you intended, but to me it only reinforces the idea that limits and requirements can be legitimately imposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyinVA