Supreme Court Decision on College Athlete compensation

duncanlamb

Top Member
Apr 22, 2009
19,034
22,601
My initial reaction was good for the players.

Unfortunately, i feel the costs will be passed down to the fanbase and make it even more cost prohibitive for a family to attend college games.

It will also widen the gap between mid majors and power conference teams. Mid Majors wont be able to afford the top 100 athletes.
 
Jul 30, 2014
1,057
1,158
My initial reaction was good for the players.

Unfortunately, i feel the costs will be passed down to the fanbase and make it even more cost prohibitive for a family to attend college games.

It will also widen the gap between mid majors and power conference teams. Mid Majors wont be able to afford the top 100 athletes.
Most mid majors can't afford top 100 athletes already if we're being honest.
 

Mercury

Top Member
Feb 20, 2009
8,978
7,369
My initial reaction was good for the players.

Unfortunately, i feel the costs will be passed down to the fanbase and make it even more cost prohibitive for a family to attend college games.

It will also widen the gap between mid majors and power conference teams. Mid Majors wont be able to afford the top 100 athletes.


99% of mids aren't getting top 100 guys under the current system.
 

rammad90

Top Member
Jan 19, 2010
14,702
12,422
99% of mids aren't getting top 100 guys under the current system.
Well maybe its a bit lower than 99% but you are correct.

Fwiw, this isnt such a surprise. Most of these guys could give a rats butt about extra educational benefits. This merely opens the door for equity and the NCAA giving up some of those Billions they make off of March Madness and the Football playoffs.

What I do like it that these guys (Basketball and Football) may not have to carry the other sports which by the way helps athletic departments. If this doesn't necessarily apply to the non-true revenue sports it saves a ton of money because those athletics are typically more likely to utilize the extra educational benefits.

As to DL's concern that this may be passed to fan base. Maybe but if not as if demand would still be there if the costs were raised significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duncanlamb
Jan 16, 2020
356
407
My initial reaction was good for the players.

Unfortunately, i feel the costs will be passed down to the fanbase and make it even more cost prohibitive for a family to attend college games.

It will also widen the gap between mid majors and power conference teams. Mid Majors wont be able to afford the top 100 athletes.

The Supreme Court has hit the bull$-eye ... with a deadly shot destined to destroy the sports we know and love. Look for "College Athletics" to show up soon on your local obit page.
 
Dec 16, 2013
715
1,048
great for the athletes - silly to think MR is worth a million or two and all the athletes get is room, board, and tuition and some spending money ( even worse at some majors where a few basketball head coaches get north of $5 million packages )
and no I am not picking on MR just the concept that coaches are worth million dollar salaries and the real Talent gets Buptkus
I wish NCAA and its conferences would just decide to let all colleges and universities offer as few sports teams as they want and not mandate they carry 16 or some other number of sports teams (of which all at VCU except men's bball are money losers)
Comply with Title IX is the only thing I believe is necessary - at VCU we could decide to play men's and women's basketball only (just used as an example)
 
Jan 16, 2020
356
407
great for the athletes - silly to think MR is worth a million or two and all the athletes get is room, board, and tuition and some spending money ( even worse at some majors where a few basketball head coaches get north of $5 million packages )
and no I am not picking on MR just the concept that coaches are worth million dollar salaries and the real Talent gets Buptkus
I wish NCAA and its conferences would just decide to let all colleges and universities offer as few sports teams as they want and not mandate they carry 16 or some other number of sports teams (of which all at VCU except men's bball are money losers)
Comply with Title IX is the only thing I believe is necessary - at VCU we could decide to play men's and women's basketball only (just used as an example)

Share the Ball makes a solid point .... with exception of possibly men's basketball and football, sports make little sense financially or in terms of spectator interest. The so-called non revenue sports could be converted into a more substantial IM program for ALL the students to participate - not just a few recruited for that particular skill. Think of the thousands and thousands for VCU students who never attended anything but a men's basketball game (if that) and, more to the point, never even gave it a thought. The NCAA would lose on the "mandatory 16" just as it lost on shared revenue. All that said, I'm not saying I want that to happen .... only that you can make a strong legal case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WestEndEd

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
20,999
63,392
With all due respect, let me ask this question of all of you all commenting on how momentous this decision is: have you read it?

The reporting on this decision is absolute bvllsh!t. Any tweet from a sports reporter hailing this is almost certainly wrong.

Read the decision. Read the decision. Not Kavanaugh's concurrence, which garnered not a SINGLE other vote and which has as much impact on the law as this post: READ THE DECISION.
 
Dec 16, 2013
715
1,048
With all due respect, let me ask this question of all of you all commenting on how momentous this decision is: have you read it?

The reporting on this decision is absolute bvllsh!t. Any tweet from a sports reporter hailing this is almost certainly wrong.

Read the decision. Read the decision. Not Kavanaugh's concurrence, which garnered not a SINGLE other vote and which has as much impact on the law as this post: READ THE DECISION.
Fair Point (this particular SC decision does little in the big picture of athletes being paid)
- I read articles summarizing the action by ESPN writer Dan Murphy from this morning (link below) and listened to talking heads on TV
This Supreme Court action upholds lower court decision that allows colleges/universities to provide additional education related benefits
the article goes on to talk about the actions occurring at state levels that peck away at the prohibitions the NCAA has had in place for decades on what the athletes may get or do.
Point I take is that changes are occurring and this SC decision may portend that future compensation/benefit issues for Athletes that find their way to the SC may face similar majorities in opinion that favor athletes.

How do you view or interpret. Thanks
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
20,999
63,392
Fair Point (this particular SC decision does little in the big picture of athletes being paid)
- I read articles summarizing the action by ESPN writer Dan Murphy from this morning (link below) and listened to talking heads on TV
This Supreme Court action upholds lower court decision that allows colleges/universities to provide additional education related benefits
the article goes on to talk about the actions occurring at state levels that peck away at the prohibitions the NCAA has had in place for decades on what the athletes may get or do.
Point I take is that changes are occurring and this SC decision may portend that future compensation/benefit issues for Athletes that find their way to the SC may face similar majorities in opinion that favor athletes.

How do you view or interpret. Thanks
The district court was asked to enjoin NCAA player compensation for athletic performance as well as rules that prohibited academic-related compensation. It denied the first type of relief requested and granted the second. The Supreme Court affirmed as to both decisions

So when you say the Court's decision "does little in the big picture of athletes being paid," that understates the work the Court did. It denied the requested pay-for-play relief. It said that "these may be price-fixing agreements, but [the district court reasonably concluded that they are] reasonable in light of the possibility that “professional-level cash payments . . . could blur the distinction between college sports and professional sports and thereby negatively affect consumer demand.” Pay for play is so wildly popular among the sports press that you likely won't see that reported.

Moreover, "even with respect to education-related benefits, the district court extended the NCAA considerable leeway. As we have seen, the court provided that the NCAA could develop its own definition of benefits that relate to education and seek modification of the court’s injunction to reflect that definition." The Supreme Court affirmed that decision too.

Finally, the injunction affirmed by the Supreme Court limits what the schools and conferences can do in the way of education-related benefits, but “does not stop the NCAA from continuing to prohibit compensation from 'sneaker companies, auto dealerships, boosters, 'or anyone else.'”

Again, the reporting on this case has been exceptionally poor. A good rule of thumb is that when the Court's decision is unanimous, it is unlikely to lend itself to sweeping assertions. Unanimous decisions are often quite limited.
The Court also noted that
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: share the ball

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
20,999
63,392
I should have added: it is an important decision and is part of a constellation of problems facing the NCAA. And the Court resoundingly rejected the NCAA's Hail Mary argument that it is essentially immune from antitrust scrutiny. This was not a welcome development for the NCAA, but almost certainly was not unexpected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: share the ball
Dec 16, 2013
715
1,048
I should have added: it is an important decision and is part of a constellation of problems facing the NCAA. And the Court resoundingly rejected the NCAA's Hail Mary argument that it is essentially immune from antitrust scrutiny. This was not a welcome development for the NCAA, but almost certainly was not unexpected.
thanks for your synopsis - you opened my eyes a little more on this ruling