ADVERTISEMENT

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

How is this statement true? A scholarship at duke is worth over $50k per year. A scholarship at LSU is worth $20k per year. Is duke in trouble for offering more to their student-athletes than LSU?

And why are we referring to student-athletes as "employees"? That's going to be the nonstarter for any discussion with me about this.
I thought you started by saying the NCAA needs to stop the student athlete sham, and stop calling them amateurs. If they are not amateurs and are getting compensated for a service the current system is illegal as currently used. I'm curious what you would call them if they are getting compensated for a service then ?

Again you sound like it would have been a 10‐0 vote instead of the unanimous 9-0 slam dunk if you were the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court.

This issue is not even about direct payments though, that may come down the road, if the NCAA is so blind to keep fighting with this losing justification. It is about limiting or having control of any earning possibilities or benefits of those you bring in to perform the task for your billion dollar industry.
 
Last edited:
You cannot collude with other employers in your industry to penalize certain employers if they decide to pay their employees more than you. That's what the NCAA does.

And that's my point. College basketball players cannot do that under current NCAA rules. If they were free to negotiate with UK, UNC, etc I would have no issue.

Who am I taking away freedom from? I say let schools pay as much or as little as they want. Let athletes accept whatever they want. Full stop. Do you accept that? No of course not, because then some schools would start paying cash. You don't want the schools to have the freedom to pay more, nor the athletes to be free to negotiate more.

Mine is the maximally free market position; would love to hear you dispute that. Your position is in favor of the big, corrupt monopolist that is the exact reason we have anti-trust laws in this country. It's totally anti-conservative (in the traditional sense) and anti-American.
I want the schools to have the freedom to do exactly what they are voluntarily doing, and I want the athletes to have the freedom to do exactly what they are voluntarily doing. How crazy is that?

Your argument is subjectively in favor of the athletes making some cash beyond what they are being provided, and you are disingenuously playing a game of making out that you are just as in favor of the schools because you say you are advocating their right to pay more. But you are dishonestly...and frankly idiotically....claiming that they are being held back from paying more when the reality is that they are voluntarily agreeing to pay the athletes with the education that they provide. They are not clamoring to pay the athletes beyond what they are providing, which is an education and a highly valuable...and not fixed...consideration. YOUR free market is bullshit, and you can't gain any credibility by claiming that the variable worth of an education would be supplemented by cash if only the NCAA would allow it. The need to establish a level playing field nixes that nonsense.

That an educator, and an organization of educators, compensates with education instead of cash should not be the basis of anti-trust action.
 
I thought you started by saying the NCAA needs to stop the student athlete sham, and stop calling them amateurs. If they are not amateurs and are getting compensated for a service the current system is illegal as currently used. I'm curious what you would call them if they are getting compensated for a service then ?

Again you sound like it would have been a 10‐0 vote instead of the unanimous 9-0 slam dunk if you were the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court.

This issue is not even about direct payments though, that may come down the road, if the NCAA is so blind to keep fighting with this losing justification. It is about limiting or having control of any earning possibilities or benefits of those you bring in to perform the task for your billion dollar industry.

I have no idea what any of that means.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tarheel0910
I thought you started by saying the NCAA needs to stop the student athlete sham, and stop calling them amateurs. If they are not amateurs and are getting compensated for a service the current system is illegal as currently used. I'm curious what you would call them if they are getting compensated for a service then ?

Again you sound like it would have been a 10‐0 vote instead of the unanimous 9-0 slam dunk if you were the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court.

This issue is not even about direct payments though, that may come down the road, if the NCAA is so blind to keep fighting with this losing justification. It is about limiting or having control of any earning possibilities or benefits of those you bring in to perform the task for your billion dollar industry.
"It is about limiting or having control of any earning possibilities or benefits of those you bring in to perform the task for your billion dollar industry."

I guess I have to point out that no employer ever has not 'limited or controlled the earning possibilities or benefits' of those they employ.

I am in what I assume is a billion dollar industry and my question is, what difference does it make if it's a billion dollar or a thousand dollar industry? Are the principles involved somehow more applicable if more money is involved, or did you just out yourself as this being all about the money and NOT the principles involved? Do you just see all that money and think the big guy should share more with the little guy just because it is so much money, without considering that the little guy would be up Shit Creek without a paddle if not for what the big guy is providing? In this case it isn't just a sports team to play on, it's a university....actually, a lot of universities.....to have a sports team to play on.

Anyone who thinks he or she is getting an unfair deal shouldn't agree to that deal, and then he or she will NOT be getting an unfair deal. Complicated, isn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncfootball-
Anyone who thinks he or she is getting an unfair deal shouldn't agree to that deal, and then he or she will NOT be getting an unfair deal. Complicated, isn't it?
This is just totally ignorant. No other way to say it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT