re: The NCAA lost in the highest court in the land

A better analogy that nobody brings up is booze

Prohibition eliminated it and crime benefitted
Booze to children was allowed in early America

2 extremes that do not work. Kids (and these are still kids we are dealing with) must have something in place to protect them. One of the things the NCAA was doing when first chartered.

The question (using booze) is where you are "adult" enough to handle the booze

Now states range from 18 to 21 and that has become the accepted law for booze. With high school and college there are to many "remoras" cloning to the income stream which means more than likely, bad decisions will be made before good ones are.

NCAA had 20 to 40 years to add arrows to their quiver for student athletes but they just fattened their executive salaries and perks and put their head in the sand.

quote:

---

Whine all you want about the portal and NIL but it was never fair

---

Life isn't fair. No one has to play sports.

quote:

---

It certainly wasn’t in the best interest of the athlete

---

It depends on how you look at it. Should a person be held accountable for their decision to go to a certain school? The ability to quit when things don't go your way without any consequences is worse. I expect nothing less from this generation.

quote:

---

The athletes need to maintain a 2.5 GPA and can only be so many years removed from high school. Adding a "redshirt year" requirement for non-grad transfers is no different than a 2.5 GPA requirement.

---

What do you think the GPA requirements are for scholarships and enrollment in certain colleges inside of a university?

quote:

---

You are confused, man

---

No

quote:

---

The NCAA doesn't fatten their wallets on college football

---

in the 50's, 60's and 70's they did till the CFA formed and SCOTUS ruled

quote:

---

Basketball, yes.

---

The Final Four is 1.1 Billion a year (yes Billion with a B) to NCAA's income

quote:

---

If you are making the "fat cat" argument, you are looking the wrong direction.

---

Still the correct argument. They did the "fat cat" thing till they lost it. Instead of learning from this error they have continued to make the same mistake with basketball.

In football the NCAA has just been replaced by the BCS / CFP which is currently a LLC (closely held private for profit?)

quote:

---

The BCS bowls had been accused of promoting the BCS system because they and their executive officers greatly benefited financially from the system. Bowl executives, such as John Junker of the Fiesta Bowl, were often paid unusually high salaries for employees of non-profit organizations. To promote support for their bowls and the BCS system, these highly paid executives allegedly gave lavish gifts to politicians, collegiate sports executives, and university athletic directors.

In response, a pro-playoff organization, called Playoff PAC, in September 2010 filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service. The complaint alleged that the top BCS bowls, with the exception of the Rose Bowl, routinely abused favorable tax status by using charitable donations to give gifts and compensation to college athletic officials. In one example detailed in the complaint, the Orange Bowl treated its executive staff and invited college athletic directors to a four-day Royal Caribbean cruise in which no business meetings were held.

---

New Boss, same as the Old Boss

If a private company now controls access to all the games ...

a) It is a monopoly
b) It controls the seating (and can sell to corporations before schools)
c) it controls the revenue streams, not the schools
d) it could care lees about actual fans and focuses more on revenue
e) all of the above and then some.

One step away from contracts and a draft.

quote:

---

Whine all you want about the portal and NIL but it was never fair or even logical that the NCAA could require a student athlete to sit out a year if he or she transferred. What was the reason for such a rule? It certainly wasn’t in the best interest of the athlete…..it’s purpose of course was because it was in the best interest of the schools and coaches. How was it ever fair a coach could prevent a student athlete from transferring to certain schools (ex: a rival school)….this is a free country and the fact that was actually allowed to happen is nuts.

It was also never fair that a scholarship athlete would be prevented from earning whatever the market might pay them, while every other student, even those on academic scholarships, could earn unlimited amounts of money.

---

The SCOTUS did not rule on the transfer portal, nor did it rule on requiring an athlete to sit, and it did not even rule on NIL. The only ruling to come out of was telling the NCAA they could not limit education related expenses.