Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 394
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Extremely limited, yes. In one sense.

    But when SCOTUS states that the NCAA model "would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America" and adds that the current rules are "suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year," that seems to presage a lot more than just an extremely limited ruling involving educational expenses.

    Am I missing something?
    On the big picture, I don't think you are missing much, but there is a bit of a qualifier here.

    First, the language you quote is from Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, which no one else on the Court joined.

    Second, it's worth remembering that in the Alston case the players lost in the court below on their challenge to the NCAA's rules limiting the schools from providing $$ not "related to education." They (wisely) chose not to appeal that decision, allowing the case to go up to the Supreme Court on the narrow issue of "education related" payments on which the players were most likely to win, enabling them to get the blast of favorable publicity from this ruling and the widespread interpretation -- furthered by Kavanuagh's concurrence getting so much of the attention -- that this ruling essentially wipes out the NCAA.

    I suspect the NCAA is hoping that allowing -- really going along with the various state laws allowing, which the NCAA would like to have stopped but couldn't -- NIL rights will take some of the steam out of challenges to the core remaining rule precluding schools from directly paying players for non-education-related benefits. And, I think a principled distinction can be made that there is a difference between players having the right to profit from NIL (which I'm 100% on board with) vs. still not allowing schools to pay them directly and that if you go the second route then there is no difference between that and professional sports. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision precludes the NCAA from continuing to make that argument and the mere fact that Kavanaugh (apparently) doesn't buy it isn't dispositive.

    But, as to NIL, I think the NCAA's efforts to try to decouple NIL rights from things that would give a "recruiting" advantage (or the example of boosters getting together to pay a player $1 million for signing autographs) are ultimately going to be fruitless -- they remain unlikely to get much traction on federal legislation so they will be at the mercy of the most lenient, player-friendly state's law, which won't preclude that kind of NIL gaming, and the NCAA has already said it's not going to try to enforce the more restrictive states' laws against players in those stated.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Nugget View Post
    On the big picture, I don't think you are missing much, but there is a bit of a qualifier here.

    First, the language you quote is from Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, which no one else on the Court joined.

    Second, it's worth remembering that in the Alston case the players lost in the court below on their challenge to the NCAA's rules limiting the schools from providing $$ not "related to education." They (wisely) chose not to appeal that decision, allowing the case to go up to the Supreme Court on the narrow issue of "education related" payments on which the players were most likely to win, enabling them to get the blast of favorable publicity from this ruling and the widespread interpretation -- furthered by Kavanuagh's concurrence getting so much of the attention -- that this ruling essentially wipes out the NCAA.

    I suspect the NCAA is hoping that allowing -- really going along with the various state laws allowing, which the NCAA would like to have stopped but couldn't -- NIL rights will take some of the steam out of challenges to the core remaining rule precluding schools from directly paying players for non-education-related benefits. And, I think a principled distinction can be made that there is a difference between players having the right to profit from NIL (which I'm 100% on board with) vs. still not allowing schools to pay them directly and that if you go the second route then there is no difference between that and professional sports. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision precludes the NCAA from continuing to make that argument and the mere fact that Kavanaugh (apparently) doesn't buy it isn't dispositive.

    But, as to NIL, I think the NCAA's efforts to try to decouple NIL rights from things that would give a "recruiting" advantage (or the example of boosters getting together to pay a player $1 million for signing autographs) are ultimately going to be fruitless -- they remain unlikely to get much traction on federal legislation so they will be at the mercy of the most lenient, player-friendly state's law, which won't preclude that kind of NIL gaming, and the NCAA has already said it's not going to try to enforce the more restrictive states' laws against players in those stated.
    Thanks, That's what I was looking for. I knew that Cavanaugh's opinion was just his opinion and probably should have made that clearer. But there doesn't seem to have been any dissent from SCOTUS, indeed anything in the ruling that would give the NCAA hope of prevailing in any future legal actions.

    As others have noted, this has been coming down the tracks for a long time. Maybe there was a window in which the NCAA could have led a discussion that would have led to legislation that would have benefitted all the stakeholders. But they dug their heels in and delayed and delayed and delayed some more. Now, if I may mix my metaphors, I believe that ship has sailed. Congress has punted, the NCAA seems to have given up and I fear that leaving it up to state legislatures is going to lead to a race to the bottom.

    Maybe Duke ends up somewhere like Georgetown or Villanova, a nationally-competitive basketball program and a much lower profile football program. Or maybe not.

    It seems like we're going into a very dark and long tunnel. A Garden of Eden might await us on the other end. But I have no idea how we get there.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Bilas on NCAA

    Just heard Bilas on All Things Considered. He thinks this change isn't a big deal. If you want to listen (I know, I know -- we all get more Bilas than we need), the audio is here and I bet there will be a transcript later tonight. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/10114...n-via-nil-vote

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Maybe Duke ends up somewhere like Georgetown or Villanova, a nationally-competitive basketball program and a much lower profile football program.
    Ends up?

    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I disagree completely. What use goes the NCAA provide to revenue sports? Do Power Five schools really need an academic clearinghouse anymore? Do they need tournament selection committees?

    I've been waiting for the "leaving the NCAA" shoe to drop for about ten years. It'll probably be the power five conferences at least for football and men's basketball.
    Uh, football HAS left the NCAA years ago. It's the BCS and the NCAA gets no revenue from it (although they admittedly do govern some rules).

  6. #66
    Interesting dynamic for 2022 recruiting. No one knows anything for sure. Recruits may sit tight until the picture is a little clearer. In regard to 2021, if guys are on campus but did not sign letter of intent, could they still transfer without sitting out?

  7. #67
    What I wonder is what happens to shoe contracts. If Duke tells Nike, ďdonít pay us, pay the playersĒ, the money for players could be enormous. Wonít UK and KU and UNC do that? I know they want the shoe money but they NEED the recruits.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by hallcity View Post
    What I wonder is what happens to shoe contracts. If Duke tells Nike, “don’t pay us, pay the players”, the money for players could be enormous. Won’t UK and KU and UNC do that? I know they want the shoe money but they NEED the recruits.
    I don't know for sure, but don't Nike, Adidas and UnderArmour just provide the equipment for free and in exchange they get the free advertising? So any shoe money would be above and beyond what is done now (for college players)?

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleBlue View Post
    I don't know for sure, but don't Nike, Adidas and UnderArmour just provide the equipment for free and in exchange they get the free advertising? So any shoe money would be above and beyond what is done now (for college players)?
    Oh, no. Nike does a whole lot more than give free uniforms and shoes. I think itís in excess of $10 million a year but Duke never announces these things.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    the SCOTUS decision is extremely limited to academic related expenses from the school and give the NCAA broad scope in regulating them as it sees fit, though a hard cap is banned. It is *almost* meaningless. The state laws allowing NIL are what's going to make substantial change.

    That said, kavanaughs concurrence seems to invite further challenge.
    Whoa. I donít see the SCOTUS decision as meaningless at all. It was a very clear message to the NCAA that they have no legal basis to continue operating their cartel without providing better comp to players.
    Carolina delenda est

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Whoa. I don’t see the SCOTUS decision as meaningless at all. It was a very clear message to the NCAA that they have no legal basis to continue operating their cartel without providing better comp to players.
    as was discussed above, most of that was in kavanaugh's concurrence, which you'll note the rest of the court didn't sign on to. As was further discussed above, they literally ruled that they could continue operating their cartel, but couldn't limit academic related comp. Further as discussed above, the athletes chose not to attempt to appeal any further reductions in the NCAA's purview, and any such attempt would need to be relitigated.

    Your colloqial wording is a misrepresentation of the ruling that broadens its scope incorrectly.

    Saying "if X happened, then Y would probably happen" is very different from "X happened, and Y actually did happen"
    basketball is back, baby!

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    as was discussed above, most of that was in kavanaugh's concurrence, which you'll note the rest of the court didn't sign on to. As was further discussed above, they literally ruled that they could continue operating their cartel, but couldn't limit academic related comp. Further as discussed above, the athletes chose not to attempt to appeal any further reductions in the NCAA's purview, and any such attempt would need to be relitigated.

    Your colloqial wording is a misrepresentation of the ruling that broadens its scope incorrectly.

    Saying "if X happened, then Y would probably happen" is very different from "X happened, and Y actually did happen"
    I donít know you, but those are fighting words. What exactly do you think I misrepresented in the ruling?

    I will take the compliment of using colloquial wording. I know quite a few lawyers that canít get the hang of that.
    Carolina delenda est

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    as was discussed above, most of that was in kavanaugh's concurrence, which you'll note the rest of the court didn't sign on to. As was further discussed above, they literally ruled that they could continue operating their cartel, but couldn't limit academic related comp. Further as discussed above, the athletes chose not to attempt to appeal any further reductions in the NCAA's purview, and any such attempt would need to be relitigated.

    Your colloqial wording is a misrepresentation of the ruling that broadens its scope incorrectly.

    Saying "if X happened, then Y would probably happen" is very different from "X happened, and Y actually did happen"
    I'm not sure why you think Kavanaugh's language is especially significant. In fact, Gorsuch's opinion very explicitly concluded that the Sherman Act applies to the NCAA, and did not give any clear reasoning that would distinguish non-education benefits from educational ones. While they didn't address them directly, they pretty clearly undercut them. I think it is particularly telling that the Court says, "Indeed, there was no evidence before the district court suggesting that corresponding academic awards would impair consumer interest in any way." But it is stated elsewhere that there was no such evidence before the district court about ANY kind of compensation.

    Kavanaugh aside, it is hard to read this decision as doing anything in the long run other than turning college sports into a fully professional enterprise. They disclaim that's what they are doing, but the reasoning speaks much more loudly than the disclaimer, which the Court uses as a kind of free pass to just not decide the issue right now (and likely win the votes of the more liberal members so that the opinion can be unanimous).

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    I donít know you, but those are fighting words. What exactly do you think I misrepresented in the ruling?

    I will take the compliment of using colloquial wording. I know quite a few lawyers that canít get the hang of that.
    I literally ran back to this thread to make sure I didnít flub ďcomplimentĒ. Jim is always watching.

    Literally.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    I literally ran back to this thread to make sure I didnít flub ďcomplimentĒ. Jim is always watching.

    Literally.
    Jim "Heimdall" Sumner
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    I literally ran back to this thread to make sure I didn’t flub “compliment”. Jim is always watching.

    Literally.
    you and jim both compliment and complement each other well, it seems.

    Reminded me of a geno interview a few months ago when someone asked how Paige Beuckers would complement azzi fudd next year. and he said "Paige will pass azzi the ball, and azzi will shoot it...and paige will say 'great shot' and azzi will say 'great pass' and that's how they'll compliment eachother."
    basketball is back, baby!

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    I'm not sure why you think Kavanaugh's language is especially significant. In fact, Gorsuch's opinion very explicitly concluded that the Sherman Act applies to the NCAA, and did not give any clear reasoning that would distinguish non-education benefits from educational ones. While they didn't address them directly, they pretty clearly undercut them. I think it is particularly telling that the Court says, "Indeed, there was no evidence before the district court suggesting that corresponding academic awards would impair consumer interest in any way." But it is stated elsewhere that there was no such evidence before the district court about ANY kind of compensation.

    Kavanaugh aside, it is hard to read this decision as doing anything in the long run other than turning college sports into a fully professional enterprise. They disclaim that's what they are doing, but the reasoning speaks much more loudly than the disclaimer, which the Court uses as a kind of free pass to just not decide the issue right now (and likely win the votes of the more liberal members so that the opinion can be unanimous).
    I agree with this analysis. To emphasize why I see this ruling as a warning to the NCAA that they cannot continue their current model without increasing comp to students:

    * The ruling was unanimous. Nothing sends a message like unanimity.
    * The issue was whether the NCAA was subject to normal operation of antitrust laws and whether the district court acted in accordance with established antitrust principles.
    * The players didnít contest the validity of the district courtís injunction. The NCAA did and were devastatingly rebuked. If Dikembe Mutombo were on the court, he would have been wagging his finger at the NCAA when issuing this decision from the bench.
    * The Court went out of its way to emphasize how narrow its ruling was: antitrust laws apply to the NCAA and the district court acted in accordance with established antitrust principles.

    But as we all know, the Supreme Court takes a case for a reason and the reason here was that they wanted to examine closely the NCAAís arguments in favor of some special exemption from the same antitrust laws any other organization must comply with. Itís a long discussion and I see little in it that gives the NCAA comfort. In fact, the Court goes out of its way to say how deferential the District Court was to the NCAA, laying a clear road map for future courts to impose injunctions that the NCAA wonít like.

    With the recent developments on basketball, including the NCAAís evolution on NIL, I see this as a situation of message given and message received.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Winston’Salem
    T-minus 3 hours, 35 minutes, some seconds.
    "Amazing what a minute can do."

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    The Jennie is out of the bottle

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    The Jennie is out of the bottle
    No one keeps Jennie in a bottle.

Similar Threads

  1. Name Image Likeness
    By hallcity in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-27-2021, 04:58 PM
  2. NCAA caves, allows athletes to make money off their likeness
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 10-30-2019, 06:19 PM
  3. NCAA forms Comm on Name, Image, Likeness Benefits
    By bundabergdevil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2019, 06:54 PM
  4. Self-image ... would you rather
    By DukeandMdFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 10:36 AM
  5. image gallery
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 07-13-2008, 09:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •