US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

For discussion regarding the Vanderbilt Commodores' football program.

Moderators: kerrigjl, BrentVU, jfgogold, NateSY, KarenYates, Vandyman74, roanoke, VandyWhit

commadore
Admiral
Posts: 9918
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 124 times

US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by commadore »

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/supreme- ... e-decision
College athletics will never be the same.


vandy05
Vice Admiral
Posts: 3675
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by vandy05 »

The quote from Justice Kavanaugh is essentially the argument that I've been making for the longest time regarding this topic:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing to not pay their workers a fair market rate on their theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. The
NCAA is not above the law."

I thought it would resonate with a lot of people who are some of the most rabid college football fans, southerners who generally lean right from a policy perspective.

But the argument that players shouldn't receive any benefit beyond a scholarship, and that schools shouldn't be allowed to compete for their services, is really absurd to me. Nowhere else in America would that make sense. The NCAA has done this to themselves. They're the ones people should be mad with if they're upset about college sports heading in a different direction.
historybill
Admiral
Posts: 5026
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:55 am
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by historybill »

It'll be interesting to see exactly what this means.

For instance.. if I pay $50 for a Kumar Rocker Vanderbilt baseball jersey, isn't he entitled to get SOMETHING for it?

On the other hand, does this mean that high school students are recruited to pay for Texas, Ohio State and Alabama because they get paid more to go to those schools?

If so, then it really is the absolute end to college sports as we know it, certainly the end of Vanderbilt's participation in it. All you have to do is go to a Dick's Sporting Goods to see how Vanderbilt merchandise sells to realize that. It probably means the end of big time sports for ALL college programs with smaller fan bases.
Johnmn555
Rear Admiral
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:03 am
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by Johnmn555 »

Not necessarily a bad thing. Let a small number of institutions run a professional sports league and while the rest return to something approaching their educational mission.
User avatar
OldDude
Vice Admiral
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: Bellevue
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by OldDude »

My exception to this ruling is : Since when is a fully paid college education, tuition , room, board and fees of no value ? These athletes are usually being "paid" more in value given than huge numbers of the American work force earn in a year of hard work. Of course,to many athletes at the powerhouse programs, education is of little interest and the special majors to hide away athletes have little value ( eg. the recent unpunished situation at UNC).

Also , a legal question. In any endorsement by a college athlete, would not logos and such be copywrited and require permission by and payment to those programs ? Another way the rich get richer ?
zdore
Commander
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:21 am

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by zdore »

Why not tie whatever benefits they receive to progress toward a degree? Isn’t that why they are enrolled? Doubt if the schools mentioned above for football would agree to that.
User avatar
AuricGoldfinger
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 16329
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:29 pm
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 223 times
Contact:

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by AuricGoldfinger »

As alluded to above, the real question is, where is all of this headed?

If it stops at being able to provide student athletes with the same benefits as other students, I don't think the landscape will change all that appreciably. While I think that allowing NIL compensation is the right thing to do, I do think it's ultimately going to create a further imbalance between the haves and have-nots.

But there are people who have been pushing for direct cash compensation of student athletes for years. I'm not normally a slippery slope kind of guy, but if that happens it will inevitably lead to an elite tier of programs and Vanderbilt will not be amongst them.
User avatar
charlestonalum
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 13165
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:37 am
Location: Charleston, SC
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 81 times
Contact:

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by charlestonalum »

How is gender equity going to be part of this; I see lots of money for lawyers piling up with discrimination suits one after the other
LawoftheWest
Vice Admiral
Posts: 2620
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:37 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by LawoftheWest »

AuricGoldfinger wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:49 pm As alluded to above, the real question is, where is all of this headed?
I feel sure it will lead to more litigation, lots of litigation, to expand the boundaries of what the athletes can receive. I saw that Kavanaugh wrote about how much money is being generated, and how much goes to school administrators, coaches, etc. and how little goes to the players. Well, litigators will take him up on that.

One consequence, I am afraid, is that non-revenue sports will be squeezed out, although Title 9 will keep some women's sports around. Possibly, women's soccer stays, men's golf goes. Well anyone can fill in the blanks. At some point it may become too costly for Vandy to continue to pay the going rate, and quit football or basketball.

It just occurred to me. How does this affect d-ii and d-iii sports, where little or no scholarships are given? Will they now start having to pay? Some unintended consequences, perhaps?
User avatar
Versus75
Admiral
Posts: 7821
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 12:19 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: US Supreme Court

Post by Versus75 »

All of the above, in my opinion.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing to not pay their workers a fair market rate...."

a. I expect that even the least expensive state colleges cost enough that the student-athlete is getting more than minimum wage. Kentucky State University costs $16,000 per year for tuition, books, fees, room and board of an In-State student. I've heard that the schools can give other benefits up to $5,000 per year, but if the value of the scholarship is ONLY $16,000 ...

Divided by 26 weeks x 30 hours per week (780 hours) = $20.51 per hour TAX FREE

I may have overestimated the hours and (for most universities) vastly underestimated the costs. My point is that in no way can one argue that the "workers" are not being paid a fair wage. And keep in mind that this is THEIR choice. The would-be student athletes could skip school, get a regular job, and pay taxes on their much lower wages.

b. If this goes forward, should the university get a percentage of the take if the athlete wears the school uniform and sports the school logo? His or her name, image and likeness are not so great without the uniform and team name. If I saw a billboard of projected NFL #1 draft choice Carson Strong wearing a suit and touting some product, I would say: "Who is that guy?" But if I was a University of Nevada fan and I see this guy saying, "I'm Carson Strong, quarterback for the University of Nevada...." I might buy his product.

c. There is no way that 95% of the colleges and universities throughout all levels of NCAA can compete with a few dozen of the top fanbases in NCAA sports. It used to be against the rules for a booster to give a "hundred dollar handshake." Now the booster can say to the 5-star recruit, "Let me put up a sign in my business saying, 'So-and-So uses (name that product). You commit to my school and I'll give you $5,000 up front."

d. I hope the IRS keeps tabs on this and makes sure that Name, Image, Likeness money is reported. For that matter, the IRS might argue that the tuition, fees, room and board of ALL scholarship athletes is taxable. If that happens, all heck will break loose in NCAA sports.
User avatar
vujoe
Vice Admiral
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:15 pm

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by vujoe »

98% of all athletes will see no change. Those 2% will cause the rest of their teammates a lot of grief.
User avatar
mathguy
Rear Admiral
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:27 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by mathguy »

LawoftheWest wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:39 pm
AuricGoldfinger wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:49 pm As alluded to above, the real question is, where is all of this headed?

It just occurred to me. How does this affect d-ii and d-iii sports, where little or no scholarships are given? Will they now start having to pay? Some unintended consequences, perhaps?
While this is a legit question, I think in D2,D3, and NAIA most of this doesn't really apply. Put simply, athletics at those schools aren't really revenue sports (at least not in the traditional sense). There is no TV money. No (or almost no) radio money. Virtually no revenue from NIL (I might see a NAIA tshirt with SCHOOL NAME BASEBALL! on it, but almost certainly not with a star players name). The revenue from ticket sales & concessions likely is break even (at best) for the athletic department. The only sense that athletics are revenue sports for these schools is in the sense that donors like winning teams, and the school spirit generated likely helps alumni donations ... it's a hard sell that this violates amateurism for students.

Similarly, I have to wonder how this ruling will be interpreted in non-revenue sports. NCAA Football and Men's Basketball are big business. Women's Basketball and Baseball *might* be break-even or revenue producing at a handful of schools. It is somewhat laughable to argue that Vandy's Women's Bowling team (great as they are) are not true amateur student-athletes in the sense that the NCAA has long argued. There are 250+ NCAA football athletes every year that go on to play in the NFL. Including European leagues, there are a LOT of future professional basketball players in the college ranks. How many future ATP players are in the college ranks? A couple dozen? I'm no expert, but my understanding is that while college is a viable route for pro tennis players, it's generally not the preferred one for top players, and since only the top 100-200 tennis players in the world actually make money playing tennis...
vandy05
Vice Admiral
Posts: 3675
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by vandy05 »

OldDude wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:19 pm My exception to this ruling is : Since when is a fully paid college education, tuition , room, board and fees of no value ? These athletes are usually being "paid" more in value given than huge numbers of the American work force earn in a year of hard work. Of course,to many athletes at the powerhouse programs, education is of little interest and the special majors to hide away athletes have little value ( eg. the recent unpunished situation at UNC).

Also , a legal question. In any endorsement by a college athlete, would not logos and such be copywrited and require permission by and payment to those programs ? Another way the rich get richer ?
No one has said that college is of no value. There is 100% a LOT of value to it. But the reason the NCAA and schools have made this mess for themselves is that they offered the scholarship, but for years sought to prevent kids from taking advantage of that compensation. Funneling kids into classes that were designed to keep them eligible and not help them graduate. Free college is essentially no good to someone if they never graduated. I would flip your statement on its head and say that to many athletic departments and coaches, education is of little interest. Its not a student-athlete problem, its a problem with the ADULTS.

Also, people shouldn't just be grateful for whatever they are afforded. If the machine is profiting off of their labor, and clearly it is, then they are entitled to get their piece of the profit as well. Additionally, no one is asking the school to pay the kid with the NIL piece. Essentially what the court said is that you can't limit someone's ability to make money off of their own name, image and likeness. Did you also know that players are not allowed to be college athletes and a professional snowboarder? They also can't be a college athlete and run a YouTube page that makes money. Its all very arbitrary.

Profiting off of one's NIL doesn't require the university logo. If someone is recognizable on their own and commercialize that, then they should be able to do so.
vandy05
Vice Admiral
Posts: 3675
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by vandy05 »

AuricGoldfinger wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:49 pm As alluded to above, the real question is, where is all of this headed?

If it stops at being able to provide student athletes with the same benefits as other students, I don't think the landscape will change all that appreciably. While I think that allowing NIL compensation is the right thing to do, I do think it's ultimately going to create a further imbalance between the haves and have-nots.

But there are people who have been pushing for direct cash compensation of student athletes for years. I'm not normally a slippery slope kind of guy, but if that happens it will inevitably lead to an elite tier of programs and Vanderbilt will not be amongst them.
I agree, the prohibition on NIL is pretty absurd. Direct cash payments are something a little different. I do think the college scholarship is good compensation for the players. And then on top of that, just don't restrict their ability to engage in the open market. Though I would also be in favor of some sort of fund that the NCAA pays into that pays for grad school or post playing career injuries for players.
User avatar
mathguy
Rear Admiral
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:27 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by mathguy »

AuricGoldfinger wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:49 pm
But there are people who have been pushing for direct cash compensation of student athletes for years. I'm not normally a slippery slope kind of guy, but if that happens it will inevitably lead to an elite tier of programs and Vanderbilt will not be amongst them.
I don't *necessarily* oppose cash compensation. But the NCAA, if it still exists after this, needs to negotiate that in a way that is fair for their member universities.

College students get scholarships/stipends/pay for performing tutoring services or being in the band at basketball games or working at the library. I don't necessarily have a problem with basketball players being paid for their time.

The NCAA just has to do it so that a bidding war doesn't develop. Set a rate. Colleges are not allowed to exceed it. This would still pretty much destroy programs at most non-Power 5 schools, but that's another story.
vandy05
Vice Admiral
Posts: 3675
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: US Supreme Court

Post by vandy05 »

Versus75 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:57 pm All of the above, in my opinion.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing to not pay their workers a fair market rate...."

a. I expect that even the least expensive state colleges cost enough that the student-athlete is getting more than minimum wage. Kentucky State University costs $16,000 per year for tuition, books, fees, room and board of an In-State student. I've heard that the schools can give other benefits up to $5,000 per year, but if the value of the scholarship is ONLY $16,000 ...

Divided by 26 weeks x 30 hours per week (780 hours) = $20.51 per hour TAX FREE

I may have overestimated the hours and (for most universities) vastly underestimated the costs. My point is that in no way can one argue that the "workers" are not being paid a fair wage. And keep in mind that this is THEIR choice. The would-be student athletes could skip school, get a regular job, and pay taxes on their much lower wages.

b. If this goes forward, should the university get a percentage of the take if the athlete wears the school uniform and sports the school logo? His or her name, image and likeness are not so great without the uniform and team name. If I saw a billboard of projected NFL #1 draft choice Carson Strong wearing a suit and touting some product, I would say: "Who is that guy?" But if I was a University of Nevada fan and I see this guy saying, "I'm Carson Strong, quarterback for the University of Nevada...." I might buy his product.

c. There is no way that 95% of the colleges and universities throughout all levels of NCAA can compete with a few dozen of the top fanbases in NCAA sports. It used to be against the rules for a booster to give a "hundred dollar handshake." Now the booster can say to the 5-star recruit, "Let me put up a sign in my business saying, 'So-and-So uses (name that product). You commit to my school and I'll give you $5,000 up front."

d. I hope the IRS keeps tabs on this and makes sure that Name, Image, Likeness money is reported. For that matter, the IRS might argue that the tuition, fees, room and board of ALL scholarship athletes is taxable. If that happens, all heck will break loose in NCAA sports.
a. You're severely underestimating the weeks (more like 48) and overestimating the hours per week (more like 20). I'd call it 1,000 hours a year. But to me this is about the NCAA not being able to limit player's ability to market themselves if the open market deems them marketable.

b. Highly unlikely the university would allow the usage of their logo. Your example is why I don't think this will ultimately amount to that much. There will be a very limited number of players who will be able to take advantage of this.

c. I've yet to hear a compelling reason why college sports should be exempted from what can be done in any other business enterprise. You can pay the best people for their service. Why should college sports be different, other than the reasoning that it has always been that way? I do think that paying for a lot of players is dicey business for a coach and they could easily find themselves in hot water if boosters are paying for a bunch of players and those players are not working out. The university is also going to have a vested interest in wanting to get those dollars directed to them for their use as opposed to doled out directly to players.

d. I'm sure the IRS will keep as close a tab on this as they do on any other citizen who makes money. They shouldn't be looking at this any more closely than they look at you or me. If the IRS wants to make scholarships taxable my guess is that that would apply to scholarships for all kids, athletes or not. I doubt anyone wants to be the IRS Commissioner who makes that call.
commadore
Admiral
Posts: 9918
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by commadore »

Ok, so let assume this thing goes the way many fear, and there is a bidding war for the players. Lets look at football only here. I can see A&M, LSU, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee jumping on the price war. The rest of the SEC will become has-beens. No top star will want to go to Missouri where there will be minimal pay and/or exposure. They will want to go to Alabama, where they will be on national TV weekly, will be paid big bucks, and will win weekly.
Meanwhile, QB Joe Average will play for a less than mediocre Missouri team that will win 3-4 OOC games and hope to beat one of the other SEC teams.
Now, you say that is pretty much the way it is now? Well the disparity will get worse and worse. The rich will get richer and the poor will not increase slightly, but indeed will get poorer and poorer until the universities will cease to make money even on the big sports. At that point, they will drop back to a lesser division.
This may take 6-10 years, but will happen.
To keep this from happening, the NCAA needs to step up and set out some guidelines (which even then may be challenged) to prevent the "big boys" from totally taking control of everything. And, sadly, I don't see them doing squat.
User avatar
geeznotagain
Admiral
Posts: 8877
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:04 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by geeznotagain »

vandy05 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:22 pm The quote from Justice Kavanaugh is essentially the argument that I've been making for the longest time regarding this topic:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing to not pay their workers a fair market rate on their theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. The NCAA is not above the law."
How about major league baseball? First, once you are drafted, you have to negotiate with just one team. You can't pick who you want your employer to be. When they make you an offer, and you negotiate a little, in the end you have to take it or leave it. If you leave it, don't you have to wait another year before you can get $, unless you go to Japan or Mexico or wherever? And once you sign with a club, until you have the required length of service (and I forget now what that is) aren't you in the same boat -- sign with team X or sit out a year? All of this in the name of competitiveness. And things were much less "fair" for the player until Curt Flood came along.
User avatar
mathguy
Rear Admiral
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:27 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by mathguy »

geeznotagain wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:21 pm
vandy05 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:22 pm The quote from Justice Kavanaugh is essentially the argument that I've been making for the longest time regarding this topic:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing to not pay their workers a fair market rate on their theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. The NCAA is not above the law."
How about major league baseball? First, once you are drafted, you have to negotiate with just one team. You can't pick who you want your employer to be. When they make you an offer, and you negotiate a little, in the end you have to take it or leave it. If you leave it, don't you have to wait another year before you can get $, unless you go to Japan or Mexico or wherever? And once you sign with a club, until you have the required length of service (and I forget now what that is) aren't you in the same boat -- sign with team X or sit out a year? All of this in the name of competitiveness. And things were much less "fair" for the player until Curt Flood came along.
Definitely a "Yes, but..." here.

1) While there are restrictions, top draft picks still make significant cash. I do expect Rocker and Leiter to soon be millionaires.

2) This system is one that has been collectively bargained with the players union. So these players are making "fair market value" as defined by the union they will be joining ... college players are being dictated to, whereas the pros can always rewrite the next unio contract to change the situation.
alathIN
Rear Admiral
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 11:35 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: US Supreme court just hammered the last nail in the NCAA coffin

Post by alathIN »

This topic always brings out the armchair economists.
So college football players recieve compensation above minimum wage. How many industries do you know where the product is aired on national TV, there is a live audience of 40-100,000, the whole show generates hundreds of millions of dollars, and the talent gets paid minimum wage?
My Vanderbilt education was immensely valuable to me, but I'm in no way typical of most football players especially at football factory schools. Did you see OJ Simpson's infamous letter? The man is functionally illiterate. I don't think his USC degree was worth anything whatsoever. Vanderbilt players do get a worthwhile education but for 90% of SEC football players, the fist half of "student-athlete" is a charade - motions that must be gone through to maintain a farcical myth that can no longer be told with a straight face.

No part of big time sports in the US is a free market, pro or college. From the draft process to salary caps to restricting high schoolers from direct entry, to using taxpayer money to build grandiose facilities for the use of monopoly franchises in a kabillion dollar industry: there is no part of any of this that bears the faintest resemblance to a free market.
It's a bunch of protected monopolies, and for the most part publicly funded.
Locked Previous topicNext topic