Started By
Message
re: NIL is getting out of hand
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:51 pm to TideWarrior
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:51 pm to TideWarrior
More info on O'Bannon and NIL which most people along with Alston are not understanding.
This states that the courts like in Alston ruled in favor of placing no limits on education related benefits not NIL.
Even with the lower court in O'Bannon two things were ruled in favor of. One that up to $5000 could be paid in a trust for NIL after graduation and two it only was being applied to FBS football and DI Bball. Again was shot down and nothing to do with NIL currently being discussed.
quote:
When the O’Bannon case reached the Ninth Circuit, the Court agreed that the Rule of Reason should be used for evaluating the antitrust claim. When identifying the anticompetitive effects, the Ninth Circuit found that the amateur rules were considered necessary because college football and basketball are “industr[ies] in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all.” The Ninth Circuit rejected the NCAA arguments that the Sherman Act did not apply to the NCAA amateur rule. The court found that the licensing of NILs is commercial activity and that commerce is being conducted when a college athlete exchanges his labor and NIL rights for a scholarship at a Division One school because it is undeniable that both parties are receiving economic gains.
While the Ninth Circuit recognizes the NCAA’s pro competitive incentives: (1) preserving the “amateurism” in college sports to keep the consumer demand for college sports and (2) integrating academics and athletics into the college environment to not separate student-athletes from their peers.
This states that the courts like in Alston ruled in favor of placing no limits on education related benefits not NIL.
quote:
The Court still agreed with the lower court that Division One schools should provide stipends for full cost of attendance. However, to preserve the amateur history of collegiate sportsquote:after leaving college because this would leave consumers to question why student-athletes are being paid and because the NCAA has now outlawed the use of NILs of student-athletes for commercial use until future notice.
the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s findings that student-athletes should receive compensation for the NILs
Even with the lower court in O'Bannon two things were ruled in favor of. One that up to $5000 could be paid in a trust for NIL after graduation and two it only was being applied to FBS football and DI Bball. Again was shot down and nothing to do with NIL currently being discussed.
1
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:53 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
O'Bannon NIL was shot down and why they appealed it to SCOTUS who denied accepting the case.
That is a lie.
SCOTUS regularly refuses to see cases when another broader case is coming down the pike.
And the $5k deferred compensation was shot down. There was no decision from the Supreme Court that said a player could not receive compensation. Any implication is another lie. The 9th district in O'Bannon was specific that the ncaa was in violation of Sherman for NIL. And the Supreme Court was specific in Alston that the ncaa was in violation of Sherman for NIL.
Why are you denying this? To what gain?
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:55 pm to silverstreak
quote:
Quote: "It's a sad, sad deal."
How sad for players to be able cash in on their marketability while they can.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:57 pm to meansonny
quote:
There is a difference between decision and remedy.
Yes but no ruling yet has been made to allow or prevent NIL yet.
quote:
Decision opens the door for more lawsuits.
This I completely agree with as SCOTUS in their opinions made it clear(at least with what I read) the NCAA will not win in court now.
quote:
Remedy is a recommendation based on the specific case.
I agree but NIL has not been resolved at all and CFB has become the wild wild west.
quote:
Which do you honestly believe carries more weight?
Why the NCAA when SCOTUS only ruled on education related expenses but understood is push comes to shove in regards to NIL they can not win in the end. So they backed off and forcing the colleges, conferences, and those involved to fix it. The NCAA basically said fine have it but you want the mess enjoy it. The NCAA after Alston decided to pass rules allowing NIL, not for recruiting, but they will avoid now being any part of a lawsuit.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:58 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
This states that the courts like in Alston ruled in favor of placing no limits on education related benefits not NIL.
It is a completely separate issue.
As I said, Alston was broader. Do you disagree?
What you just posted says that the ncaa does not have control over universities for their cost of attendance stipend. There can be no ncaa cap on the COA stipend.
Completely irrelevant to NIL
quote:
Even with the lower court in O'Bannon two things were ruled in favor of. One that up to $5000 could be paid in a trust for NIL after graduation and two it only was being applied to FBS football and DI Bball. Again was shot down and nothing to do with NIL currently being discussed.
The deferred $5k compensation was shot down. No where does it say that the ncaa is in violation of Sherman, but they can continue to do so with NIL.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:00 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Some of us predicted this would happen.
College football on its way to ruin
Started with this stupid playoff
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:01 pm to themicah85
quote:
The biggest problem that ever existed was that the NFL couldnt create a remotely self sustaining minor league.
They could. They just don’t because college football created it for them at no cost. The NFL has never tried
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:04 pm to TizzyT4theUofA
quote:
They absolutely are worth that much, I know because people are willing to pay it.
Eh, very simple way of looking at value. People make poor business decisions all the time by over-valuing a product or commodity. Professional sports franchises do it all the time. Simply put, how much someone is willing to pay for something isn’t mutually exclusive with value.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:06 pm to meansonny
quote:
SCOTUS regularly refuses to see cases when another broader case is coming down the pike.
What case was coming down the pike? I have no clue what case you are referencing.
quote:
And the $5k deferred compensation was shot down.
I am quoting law reviews. These are not my findings.
quote:
The Court still agreed with the lower court that Division One schools should provide stipends for full cost of attendance. However, to preserve the amateur history of collegiate sports the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s findings that student-athletes should receive compensation for the NILs
quote:
There was no decision from the Supreme Court that said a player could not receive compensation.
I never said they did. I have stated that there is no court ruling by SCOTUS to allow NIL or should say prevent NIL. If there is outside of opinion please provide the court ruling that is law.
quote:
The 9th district in O'Bannon was specific that the ncaa was in violation of Sherman for NIL
They were and I never said they did not.
quote:
The Ninth Circuit rejected the NCAA arguments that the Sherman Act did not apply to the NCAA amateur rule. The court found that the licensing of NILs is commercial activity and that commerce is being conducted when a college athlete exchanges his labor and NIL rights for a scholarship at a Division One school because it is undeniable that both parties are receiving economic gains.
But they still ruled not in O'Bannon favor
quote:
The Court still agreed with the lower court that Division One schools should provide stipends for full cost of attendance. However, to preserve the amateur history of collegiate sports the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s findings that student-athletes should receive compensation for the NILs
Are you arguing against their ruling now or just your opinion. Again I am only quoting the case not my words.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:07 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
quote:
There is a difference between decision and remedy.
Yes but no ruling yet has been made to allow or prevent NIL yet.
Lol
Ruling that the ncaa is in violation of antitrust by the Supreme Court = the ncaa better not frick around or they will find out.
As I said, it is explicit that college football is interstate commerce, with benefits to the university and the athlete, and that the NIL rules were in direct conflict with Sherman.
The NCAA is smart enough to know what that means. Grant individual ownership of NIL to athletes or get sued into perpetuity by 1000s of athletes.
quote:
quote:
Decision opens the door for more lawsuits.
This I completely agree with as SCOTUS in their opinions made it clear(at least with what I read) the NCAA will not win in court now.
Was that hard? And was it Alston?
quote:
quote:
Remedy is a recommendation based on the specific case.
I agree but NIL has not been resolved at all and CFB has become the wild wild west.
Are you going to tell Morgan and Morgan who they can hire for a billboard? How much they can pay that individual? And how to structure that contract?
Lol. Good luck with that.
I will repeat. frick around and find out. Lol
quote:
quote:
Which do you honestly believe carries more weight?
Why the NCAA when SCOTUS only ruled on education related expenses but understood is push comes to shove in regards to NIL they can not win in the end. So they backed off and forcing the colleges, conferences, and those involved to fix it. The NCAA basically said fine have it but you want the mess enjoy it. The NCAA after Alston decided to pass rules allowing NIL, not for recruiting, but they will avoid now being any part of a lawsuit.
The ruling was broader than that. As you pointed out, the ncaa couldn't restrict COA related expenses. But the ncaa could restrict direct from university noneducated expenses.
Again... this is completely separate from NIL but in the same decision.
I agree that it is the wild west.
But there is no possible way to legislate NIL other than to disallow it from the universities.
The problem is the NIL decision in pairing with the free one time transfer. That is free agency and there is no legal reason to do so.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:07 pm to meansonny
quote:
What you just posted says that the ncaa does not have control over universities for their cost of attendance stipend. There can be no ncaa cap on the COA stipend.
Completely irrelevant to NIL
Exactly totally different and the only ruling which is now law had to do with education related expenses not NIL in Alston ruled by SCOTUS.
quote:
No where does it say that the ncaa is in violation of Sherman
I added that in another post.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:22 pm to meansonny
Lets keep this simple and make it easy.
My argument in response to so many people in these threads is due to the number of people stating a law was passed by SCOTUS preventing the NCAA from not allowing it. It has not and if so please find me a link with the direct language.
All SCOTUS did was basically say if you challenge it we will probably hear it and make a law, which remember O'Bannon took 7+ years to get denied by SCOTUS, that would limit any ability the NCAA could violate the Sherman Act.
My argument in response to so many people in these threads is due to the number of people stating a law was passed by SCOTUS preventing the NCAA from not allowing it. It has not and if so please find me a link with the direct language.
All SCOTUS did was basically say if you challenge it we will probably hear it and make a law, which remember O'Bannon took 7+ years to get denied by SCOTUS, that would limit any ability the NCAA could violate the Sherman Act.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:31 pm to TideWarrior
Just wait until Texas joins the conference. A thread like this will be a thousand pages.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:32 pm to Doak Walker
I assume Texas will make a better investment than a&m. 
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:37 pm to TideWarrior
They are all lawyers, or at least they think they are.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:39 pm to Doak Walker
quote:
They are all lawyers
That I am not but enjoy reading cases and their ruling on things that interest me. Why I try and use actual information from the case and law reviews.
This post was edited on 12/21/22 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 12/22/22 at 12:08 am to silverstreak
We are going to have to go to super conference with enforcement by FBI or something by agreement and a 25 million a year salary cap
Posted on 12/22/22 at 12:56 am to Doak Walker
quote:
The court ruling that created this mess would also prevent capping. Any cap would be preventing the 'student athlete' from receiving a fair market value for their name, image and likeness.
The NFL has salary caps. Cap what teams can spend.
This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 12:57 am
Posted on 12/22/22 at 6:04 am to Uga Alum
It has already stopped me watching. Now that teams can buy their players it's not college football to me anymore
Posted on 12/22/22 at 8:03 am to WonderWartHawg
quote:
If they are going to get paid that much, do away with the scholarship part. They can afford to pay their own damn way!
Then my school will counter offer NIL money and a full scholarship with a nice stipend and all expenses thrown in. And if the NCAA tries to pass a rule that student athletes aren't allowed to receive athletic scholarships anymore, then, when (if) that ridiculous lawsuit actually makes it to the Supreme Court, two things will happen. One, those Supreme Court justices, all nine of them, will be laughing their asses off. Two, they will all unanimously sign the shortest and quickest decision they've ever made - two words - "frick off".
This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 8:04 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News