Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:06 pm to RT1941
To the OP it as simple as this:
Collegiate athletics are enjoyed to a great degree by conservative males - especially in the South and Midwest. For no other reason, therefore, they and their traditions and institutions must be destroyed.
Collegiate athletics are enjoyed to a great degree by conservative males - especially in the South and Midwest. For no other reason, therefore, they and their traditions and institutions must be destroyed.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:07 pm to PlateJohnsonIII
Getting this pissfest back on track....
Reading the arguements I actually am expecting an opinion that is going to narrowly define a victory for the plantiff.
The question in this case is whether the NCAA deserves special relief from normal antitrust rules in order to protect its educational mission and preserve a tradition of amateurism in college sports. In some sports there mission is absolutely the case, golf, tennis, volleyball, swimming, track, gym, etc., the majority of these sports has very high academic graduating rates, they do not go pro in the sport except a very small handful.
However, Football, men's basketball are definitely not amateurs when you get to a certain level. The ability for these schools, conferences, and the NCAA to make crazy money on the television contracts as well as the salary of the coaches show that whether the NCAA wants to believe it or not, these are not amateurs, they are closer to semi-pros. This can also be applied to some other sports to a lesser degree, baseball, womens basketball, etc.
I think that they are going to have a very narrow ruling that makes NCAA adjust some practices without opening the floodgates for more legislation. In particular, pointing to TV contracts will probably not be in the opinion as that will bring up fair pay questions and this ruling would be subject to those cases. Instead I think they will bring up the 1 and done basketball, the 2-3 and done for football rules as being antithetical to their educational mission. I think that SCOTUS will tell the NCAA that they cannot place such strict limits on academic benefits and also claim that education and amateurism is the focus while also enjoying antitrust relief.
Reading the arguements I actually am expecting an opinion that is going to narrowly define a victory for the plantiff.
The question in this case is whether the NCAA deserves special relief from normal antitrust rules in order to protect its educational mission and preserve a tradition of amateurism in college sports. In some sports there mission is absolutely the case, golf, tennis, volleyball, swimming, track, gym, etc., the majority of these sports has very high academic graduating rates, they do not go pro in the sport except a very small handful.
However, Football, men's basketball are definitely not amateurs when you get to a certain level. The ability for these schools, conferences, and the NCAA to make crazy money on the television contracts as well as the salary of the coaches show that whether the NCAA wants to believe it or not, these are not amateurs, they are closer to semi-pros. This can also be applied to some other sports to a lesser degree, baseball, womens basketball, etc.
I think that they are going to have a very narrow ruling that makes NCAA adjust some practices without opening the floodgates for more legislation. In particular, pointing to TV contracts will probably not be in the opinion as that will bring up fair pay questions and this ruling would be subject to those cases. Instead I think they will bring up the 1 and done basketball, the 2-3 and done for football rules as being antithetical to their educational mission. I think that SCOTUS will tell the NCAA that they cannot place such strict limits on academic benefits and also claim that education and amateurism is the focus while also enjoying antitrust relief.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:10 pm to PlateJohnsonIII
quote:
If this ruling is upheld, scholarship restrictions are gone, and the NCAA will have to he reinvented as that’s a key rule.
IOW 75% of athletic departments will no longer have sports because they can’t afford it and the rest may go bankrupt due to contractural obligations. Sounds awesome, file a lawsuit that does nothing but burn the whole thing to the ground, helping no one at the end of the day. Bravo
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:11 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
So institutions holding each other accountable is the problem?
Holding each other accountable for what?
Covering up rape? The NCAA has already demonstrated that it has no interest in that.
Scholarship restrictions aren’t a legal or ethical problem. The need to be held accountable for limiting scholarships is manufactured by the schools themselves under the guise of the NCAA
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:13 pm to lsufball19
quote:
IOW 75% of athletic departments will no longer have sports because they can’t afford it
If UAB can afford sports, I think the SEC schools will be fine. The 7 million dollar coaching contracts and larger-than-NFL stadiums aren’t a necessity.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:19 pm to rockiee
quote:
This is true, problem is that most don't call it out equally
I'll admit to that, but I am growing less patient with the right on this crap. I spent 4 years rolling my eyes at wingnuts on the left, but I am seeing more and more of a similar vein from the right.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:21 pm to 3down10
quote:
Do you guys even know what the NCAA actually is?
A “nonprofit” organization that helps colleges and universities exploit the labor of young student-athletes for billions of dollars?
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:25 pm to trackem
quote:
A “nonprofit” organization that helps colleges and universities exploit the labor of young student-athletes for billions of dollars?
Shut down the NCAA and where do these exploited athletes go?
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:27 pm to PlateJohnsonIII
quote:
The 7 million dollar coaching contracts and larger-than-NFL stadiums aren’t a necessity.
Therein lies the problem, as noted in my post. There are contracts already signed for those things. So yes, they are a necessity, practically and legally, until fully satisfied.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:27 pm to PlateJohnsonIII
Good, Alabama will get 29 of their wins back.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:28 pm to Lg
Somewhere they could capitalize on their talents at a fair-market value, perhaps?
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:28 pm to PlateJohnsonIII
Good. Sports need to go back to club level.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:28 pm to Lg
quote:
Shut down the NCAA and where do these exploited athletes go?
Plate probably doesn’t want to hear the insensitive and unfortunate truth for a large percentage of them
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:29 pm to 3down10
quote:
I don't know why some of you think this is a good thing.
IT will be a terrible thing. People are just dumb
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:30 pm to trackem
quote:
Somewhere they could capitalize on their talents at a fair-market value
I think you and they over-value what their fair-market value is without the universities’ names behind them.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:33 pm to trackem
quote:
Somewhere they could capitalize on their talents at a fair-market value, perhaps?
Where? A minor league XFL type deal? Who's going to start it and maintain it? A scholarship and all of the benefits that come with it is fair market value because all of those scholarship players on the TEAM are valued the same. If you want to see a team collapse, start paying one or two football players more than the others and see what happens.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:35 pm to lsufball19
The same could be said about the value of a conference or program without the athletes. The NBA is already scooping up top talent away from NCAA programs. Other pro organizations would quickly follow the same course without the gentleman’s agreements. It wouldn’t be good for college sports and non-pro potential athletes, but at least it would be honest and pay adults what they are worth for their services.
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:36 pm to trackem
quote:What exactly is their FMV without an Auburn/Notre Dame/Alabama/Clemson/LSU/Florida/USC/Ohio State, etc. jersey and the TV spotlight those schools bring to the athlete?
Somewhere they could capitalize on their talents at a fair-market value, perhaps?
And what exactly is the FMV out of high school if they don't get offers from said schools in the recruiting rankings?
Posted on 3/31/21 at 3:38 pm to trackem
quote:
The same could be said about the value of a conference or program without the athletes.
Not really. CFB was very popular before multi billion dollar TV deals and long before coaching was a way to get rich
Page 3 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News