One step closer to college athletes being able making money

[roses04]

Supreme Court ruling today

Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA In Case Over Student Athlete Compensation

The court upheld a lower court’s ruling that struck down some limits the NCAA puts on student athletes.

www.forbes.com

 

[Coug90]

Supreme Court ruling today

Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA In Case Over Student Athlete Compensation

The court upheld a lower court’s ruling that struck down some limits the NCAA puts on student athletes.

www.forbes.com

This is a tricky one. When you have athletes that are household names out of high school I get the argument that the NCAA is unfairly profiting off of them. On the other hand I see no scenario where this doesn’t widen the gap in talent for big market programs vs small market programs. Don’t see how that’s a good thing for the fan and like 99% of the athletes (very few are going to make money and it will also only be in a few sports- yet big $ programs will make big promises of $ to lure players, and they will).

 

[SDCoug]

This is a tricky one. When you have athletes that are household names out of high school I get the argument that the NCAA is unfairly profiting off of them. On the other hand I see no scenario where this doesn’t widen the gap in talent for big market programs vs small market programs. Don’t see how that’s a good thing for the fan and like 99% of the athletes (very few are going to make money and it will also only be in a few sports- yet big $ programs will make big promises of $ to lure players, and they will).

Don't forget the headache associated with the 75% that come in believing that they "should" make money.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Let them go straight to the league and the rest will sort itself out. Especially when an 18 year old gets his head taken off by a Kam Chancellor type.

If you don't get drafted out of high school, you get your scholarship and maybe a few other monetary perks and THAT'S IT. No signing $10MM endorsement deals, free corvettes, or other bs that keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

 

[mikalalas]

My Issue with the Supreme Court's ruling is:

1. The Billions that the NCAA makes, then gives to the Universities, Colleges, is NON PROFIT MONEY.

The money helps Colleges provide NON PROFIT EDUCATION, and athletics, etc.

The only ones who profit, are the grossly overpaid Administrators like Conference Commisioners, etc, and the Media, like ESPN, Fox, etc.

2. The Supreme Court Justice said that if the Football players, Basketball Players of the biggest conferences, were to split 50% of the money the NCAA gets, gives to Colleges, that each athlete would get about $360,000 to $500,000.

Athletes already get about $150,000 to $300,000 each, to pay for their Tuition to the Colleges.

So the Athletes are already GETTING PAID, Pretty Damn close to the $360,000 to $500,000 model the Supreme Court Justice mentioned.

3. The NCAA's point that if pay the athletes, it isnt AMATEUR COLLEGE SPORTS anymore but instead NFL like, NBA like, G league like, minor league like, PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, is a VALID POINT.

4. If athletes can be paid by colleges, it widens the talent gap between the Haves, and Have nots, and will make it so that the Alabama types will almost always win, almost never lose.

That the Supreme Court Justices cant see, dont know these points is DISAPPOINTING.

The NCAA, Colleges should respond to this with:

"Fine, you want to get paid. Your all getting paid. Each athlete will get a equal cut of about 25% to 50% of the money that the NCAA gets. That should equal about $200,000 to $400,000 per athlete. Also each College is not allowed to give schollarships anymore. From now on each athlete will have to pay for their own Tuition, Education, books, food, living expenses, etc, out of the about $200,000 to $400,000 that each athlete gets."

The athletes would probably find out that it better that they get a all expenses covered $175k Scholarship, as by the time they pay all their college expenses, out of their about $200,000 to $350,000, that they would only have about $15,000 to about $65,000 left over.

Then if that happened, watch them cry that they are only getting $15,000 to $65,000.

Not realizing they are GETTING A EDUCATION, DEGREE, INTERNSHIP, BECOMING QUALIFIED FOR WORK, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, GETTING JOBS, STARTING BUSINESSES, MAYBE GETTING A SHOT AT NFL, NBA, G LEAGUE, XFL, OVERSEAS PAID PRO BALL, ETC, which would maybe get them millions.

But oh no, athletes dont get that, and the Supreme Court doesnt get that either.

 

[Coug90]

My Issue with the Supreme Court's ruling is:

1. The Billions that the NCAA makes, then gives to the Universities, Colleges, is NON PROFIT MONEY.

The money helps Colleges provide NON PROFIT EDUCATION, and athletics, etc.

The only ones who profit, are the grossly overpaid Administrators like Conference Commisioners, etc, and the Media, like ESPN, Fox, etc.

2. The Supreme Court Justice said that if the Football players, Basketball Players of the biggest conferences, were to split 50% of the money the NCAA gets, gives to Colleges, that each athlete would get about $360,000 to $500,000.

Athletes already get about $150,000 to $300,000 each, to pay for their Tuition to the Colleges.

So the Athletes are already GETTING PAID, Pretty Damn close to the $360,000 to $500,000 model the Supreme Court Justice mentioned.

3. The NCAA's point that if pay the athletes, it isnt AMATEUR COLLEGE SPORTS anymore but instead NFL like, NBA like, G league like, minor league like, PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, is a VALID POINT.

4. If athletes can be paid by colleges, it widens the talent gap between the Haves, and Have nots, and will make it so that the Alabama types will almost always win, almost never lose.

That the Supreme Court Justices cant see, dont know these points is DISAPPOINTING.

The NCAA, Colleges should respond to this with:

"Fine, you want to get paid. Your all getting paid. Each athlete will get a equal cut of about 25% to 50% of the money that the NCAA gets. That should equal about $200,000 to $400,000 per athlete. Also each College is not allowed to give schollarships anymore. From now on each athlete will have to pay for their own Tuition, Education, books, food, living expenses, etc, out of the about $200,000 to $400,000 that each athlete gets."

The athletes would probably find out that it better that they get a all expenses covered $175k Scholarship, as by the time they pay all their college expenses, out of their about $200,000 to $350,000, that they would only have about $15,000 to about $65,000 left over.

Then if that happened, watch them cry that they are only getting $15,000 to $65,000.

Not realizing they are GETTING A EDUCATION, DEGREE, INTERNSHIP, BECOMING QUALIFIED FOR WORK, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, GETTING JOBS, STARTING BUSINESSES, MAYBE GETTING A SHOT AT NFL, NBA, G LEAGUE, XFL, OVERSEAS PAID PRO BALL, ETC, which would maybe get them millions.

But oh no, athletes dont get that, and the Supreme Court doesnt get that either.

You nailed a lot of good points Mik. For every athlete that is looking for money in college there’s 100 that would be stoked to see their number on an NCAA video game and not care about getting a dime. The NCAA along with the colleges gives these athletes an opportunity to go pro AND/or get their education paid for. That’s not nothing. Not to mention after college companies salivate over college athletes as candidates in the job market because of the discipline and hard work it takes to compete at that level. If all you care about is getting paid for your sport go pro or wait it out. Nobody is forcing you to go to college.

 

[MoreCougthanYou]

"For every athlete that is looking for money in college there’s 100 that would be stoked to see their number on an NCAA video game and not care about getting a dime."

Gonna need you to show your work on this one.

 

[PeteTheChop]

No signing $10MM endorsement deals, free corvettes, or other bs that keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Would that be considered socialism?

 

[SaveFerris]

Would that be considered socialism?

Well, it's doesn't exactly sound like free market thinking does it?

 

[PeteTheChop]

Well, it's doesn't exactly sound like free market thinking does it?

Not an expert on political systems by any means, unfortunately.

But is it safe to say that most people who are not for paying and compensating players and instead are for trying to maintain or create a level playing field among "the rich" and "the poor" would be supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

 

[mikalalas]

Would that be considered socialism?

Ok I am a semi conservative semi anti socialist saying this, what about to say.

There are exceptions to the no communism, socialism thing.

And there is a difference in having, between fairness, equality in CHANCE at OPPORTUNITY, etc, and having everything be perfectly fair, equal, between those who dont work at all, those who work, but dont work smart, and those that work hard, and those who work smart.

Those who work hard, smart, generally do, should get ahead, do better then those those who dont.

And thats as it should be.

But if there is a situation, where people, institutions, colleges, businesses, countries, that work hard, smart, etc, that dont do well because of MONOPOLIES, etc, that is NOT good.

So how does that apply to College Football, what we are talking about?

Paying College Football athletes will create a have and have not situation, where even colleges that work hard, smart, invest well, do everything they should to be competitive, wont ever be competitive, and will forever be uncompetitive, be a have not, because of the Monopolistic Alabama type that have more more.

That is kinda like the Feudalistic Middle Ages, where Dukes, Nobles, Barons, Royalties had all the advantage over the Peasantry, Serfs, Merchants, etc.

The Founding Fathers wanted to, changed that, created a FREE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MARKWT ENTERPRISE, CAPITALISTIC system.

In that system, there is not supposed to be Dukes, Nobles, Royalty, etc, that got their power, money, influence, simply by being born and inheriting it.

No that system is supposed to me a MERITOCRACY, where those that work hard, smart, invest well, meet supply, demand, give customers what they want, like, etc, succeed, and those that just inherit money, and dont work hard, smart, etc, fail.

 

[PeteTheChop]

There are exceptions to the no communism, socialism thing.

Good post as usual Miklalas.

Just to be clear, you're saying there are rare instances when socialism or communism would be a good thing and college football is one such example.

 

[mikalalas]

Not an expert on political systems by any means, unfortunately.

But is it safe to say that most people who are not for paying and compensating players and instead are for trying to maintain or create a level playing field among "the rich" and "the poor" would be supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

There is a difference between Pro Sports and Amateur sports. In Pro Sports there are rich, poor, no level playing field, because Pro Sports is a capitalistic free PRIVATE, CORPORATE enterprise thing where those that pay more, and invest well, generally win more.

And thats as it should be in Private Pro Sports.

But in PUBLIC, COLLEGE, AMATEUR sports, there should be a level, fair, equal opportunity playing field, where almost anybody who has the talent, athletic ability, and applies that ability, works hard, smart, etc, can succeed.

There should be some WSU's, Ore St's where if they dont do what they need to do, FAIL.

And there should be some Alabama types that if they dont do what they should, they FAIL.

And there should be WSU, Ore St types where if they do what they should, can, should SUCCEED.

And there should be Alabama types that if they do what they should, can, should SUCCEED.

Freedom, Fairness, Equality of OPPORTUNITY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, doesnt mean that everyone will, should succeed.

It just means that those who do what they should can, should SUCCEED, eventually, if they dont give up at occasional, tempory fail.

Paying College football athletes will destroy the amateurness of College Football, and Destroy what I am talking about.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Mik,
Really in no capacity does big-time college athletics fit with the model you are talking about. Alabama already is a "have" in a conference of "have and have nots".

Unlike the professional leagues that are really just a single business with multiple franchises within where they share revenue, college sport has nothingn of the sort and never has. Each conference makes their own revenus-sharing rules with TV and bowl revenue and each team makes their own separate sponsorship deals.

If the NCAA was able to create a situation where the whole structure was under one supreme all-encompassing system of governance then somewhat equalization could occur under where it seems we are headed.

Ultimately for your 4 and 5 star recruits, getting that potential Sunday payday is still going to come down to exposure for a powerhouse, coaching, etc. I guess the advantage in exposing inequities for the lesser rated players could be monetary but not likely under this ruling because they wont be that marketable anyway.

I think players want to play and win - in that order. If they can't win, they want to play and they want to be seen and get exposure so they can make money playing the game. My first gut instinct is that Alabama's advantage won't be magnified overall in a significant way that hurts other universities in other conferences. But UCLA might gain against the Arizona's, OSU's, Utah's and WSU's of the world.

I dunno, we'll see. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[SaveFerris]

Not an expert on political systems by any means, unfortunately.

But is it safe to say that most people who are not for paying and compensating players and instead are for trying to maintain or create a level playing field among "the rich" and "the poor" would be supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of politics on the board but I personally don't agree with that conclusion. Political leanings and economic viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. Also, people "vote" against their personal interest all the time. Although likely more of a moderate, Warren Buffett (mega super rich) I believe has stated he's a Democrat for instance but I would assume he leans more toward a market based economy.