Outside Topic NCAA in the Supreme Court - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic NCAA in the Supreme Court (/thread-21795.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic NCAA in the Supreme Court (/thread-21795.html)
NCAA in the Supreme Court - 82lsju - 03-31-2021
it will be interesting to see how this turns out...
Quote:"The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States questioned whether amateurism is an essential part of the NCAA's business model Wednesday during a landmark hearing for the future of college sports while also expressing concerns about starting a slippery slope of judicial rulings that could lead to the destruction of an American tradition.
The Supreme Court heard more than 90 minutes of oral arguments Wednesday morning in the NCAA v. Alston case, the first time the nation's highest court has weighed in on the business of college sports in nearly four decades. The question in front of the court 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. The court is expected to make a ruling sometime in late spring or early summer."
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31172473/supreme-court-questions-validity-amateurism-ncaa-business-model
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - burger - 03-31-2021
According to this NY Times article, the court sounds likely to allow payments to players. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/supreme-court-ncaa.html
That would be the fairest outcome, as far as I'm concerned. And if Stanford decides to die on the "amateur sports or nothing" hill, that's fine, too. It's possible to be a great university and not have sports.
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - Giants - 03-31-2021
(03-31-2021, 01:51 PM)burger Wrote: According to this NY Times article, the court sounds likely to allow payments to players. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/supreme-court-ncaa.html
That would be the fairest outcome, as far as I'm concerned. And if Stanford decides to die on the "amateur sports or nothing" hill, that's fine, too. It's possible to be a great university and not have sports.
I think all the great universities in the US have sports programs. Heck, even Cal Tech has a program.
Of course, not all great universities compete at the D1 level.
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - OutsiderFan - 03-31-2021
The NCAA's model is about to implode. It's about time.
Here's what the NCAA should have done that would have mitigated its coming losses:
1. Spending cap on Athletic Departments by division, while adhering to Title IX requirements
2. Some kind of capital expenditure cap
3. No restrictions on athlete NIL or ability to work and earn money outside of chosen sport
4. Increase academic eligibility standards
5. 4-year scholarships (not one year renewable)
6. Make recruiting a free market as it is with anyone else in America
If it did these things, it could argue the money it is making hand over fist, is put into supporting the educational mission of the school, which enjoys tax exemption. It could also claim members aren't using unpaid labor to subsidize coach salaries and the facility arms race.
Because the NCAA did none of this on its own in a way it could control, and decided to fight paying its labor, it is at risk to have its entire business model decided for it by SCOTUS.
When the NCAA lawyer claimed the NAA is able to generate all the revenue it does because its fans like the fact it doesn't pay its labor, the NCAA goose was cooked.
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - CTcard - 03-31-2021
(03-31-2021, 01:51 PM)burger Wrote: According to this NY Times article, the court sounds likely to allow payments to players. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/supreme-court-ncaa.html
That would be the fairest outcome, as far as I'm concerned. And if Stanford decides to die on the "amateur sports or nothing" hill, that's fine, too. It's possible to be a great university and not have sports.
I listened to a bit. To me, the justices sounded as if they thought both sides were on the grift. But, I don't usually listen to the supreme court arguments so it could be they always sound that way.
Despite the breathless reporting, it seems to me that if the supreme court confines themselves to upholding or not the ruling on appeal in the Alston case then there isn't really the prospect for drastically changing the NCAA sports landscape. The ruling that the NCAA is appealing allows the NCAA to continue to limit scholarships to the cost of attendance but allows conferences, rather than the NCAA, to set what "education-related benefits" can be given to football and basketball players.
Of course without somebody determining just what an education-related benefit is, that could get carried away (a house? players have to live somewhere). Barring that, it doesn't seem that this will lead to anything that would cause Stanford to opt out, that would cause most fans to notice, or any of the complaining to die down.
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - ca245 - 03-31-2021
A spending cap, if extended to coach salaries, could get the NCAA into anti-trust trouble in a different way, as a form of price fixing. it would be sort of like hi-tech companies agreeing to a cap on salaries paid to their engineers.
In 1998 the NCAA lost such a case when they tried to cap assistant coach salaries.
Here's a link to an article discussing this issue:
Anti-trust and salary caps
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - needle - 03-31-2021
TV doesn't care about any of this and 99% of the schools are addicted to the television cash/exposure.
As long as the TV money flows, it will only be scandal that can bring down "big time" college sports.
Not saying it isn't likely....
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - cardcrimson - 03-31-2021
(03-31-2021, 01:51 PM)burger Wrote: According to this NY Times article, the court sounds likely to allow payments to players. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/supreme-court-ncaa.html
That would be the fairest outcome, as far as I'm concerned. And if Stanford decides to die on the "amateur sports or nothing" hill, that's fine, too. It's possible to be a great university and not have sports.
Can you name one?
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - BostonCard - 03-31-2021
(03-31-2021, 08:18 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(03-31-2021, 01:51 PM)burger Wrote: According to this NY Times article, the court sounds likely to allow payments to players. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/supreme-court-ncaa.html
That would be the fairest outcome, as far as I'm concerned. And if Stanford decides to die on the "amateur sports or nothing" hill, that's fine, too. It's possible to be a great university and not have sports.
Can you name one?
As mentioned earlier, even CalTech has some competitive sports. But perhaps the poster meant that it is possible to be a great university and not offer sports where athletes are recruited. Pretty much every graduate school operates on that principle. The University of Chicago got out of the business of anything beyond recreational sports in 1939, when they left the Big Ten. Intercollegiate athletics in pretty much every country outside the US doesn't involve trying to attract students for their recruiting prowess.
But yeah, even the most non-competitive schools will have intramural and club sports with friendly intra- and inter-collegiate competition, and that's a good thing. Whether big money sports as currently played in the NCAA is a good thing is a fair question. Until recently, I would have thought absolutely; now, I'm not so sure.
BC
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - OutsiderFan - 03-31-2021
(03-31-2021, 08:11 PM)ca245 Wrote: A spending cap, if extended to coach salaries, could get the NCAA into anti-trust trouble in a different way, as a form of price fixing. it would be sort of like hi-tech companies agreeing to a cap on salaries paid to their engineers.
In 1998 the NCAA lost such a case when they tried to cap assistant coach salaries.
Here's a link to an article discussing this issue:
Anti-trust and salary caps
All this stuff can be collectively bargained, which is how it should be, IMO.
RE: NCAA in the Supreme Court - BostonCard - 03-31-2021
(03-31-2021, 09:10 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(03-31-2021, 08:11 PM)ca245 Wrote: A spending cap, if extended to coach salaries, could get the NCAA into anti-trust trouble in a different way, as a form of price fixing. it would be sort of like hi-tech companies agreeing to a cap on salaries paid to their engineers.
In 1998 the NCAA lost such a case when they tried to cap assistant coach salaries.
Here's a link to an article discussing this issue:
Anti-trust and salary caps
All this stuff can be collectively bargained, which is how it should be, IMO.
Why would the coaches want to?
BC