SCOTUS Ruling For NCAA Players - Education-Related Benefits

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

"But this case," Kavanaugh stresses, "involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA's compensation rules." He says he is writing to "underscore that the NCAA's remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws." (This is from SCOTUS Blog site chat.) It's being interpreted there as: "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence pretty much begs for a case challenging the remaining NCAA rules (compensation)."

Or, Congressional intervention

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

To play advocate for NCAA: Congress has foisted upon it an economic model which is unsustainable; paying for women’s sports at the same level as men’s. There needs to be some type of accommodation for that, and that will require Congress.

 

[upperdeck]

its an interesting thing that the sports have revenue generated to extremes by a few sports that have to fund all the other sports but they want everything to be equal in many ways. imagine if other business had that forced on them.

 

[Fat tire 13]

Another interesting wrinkle (pasted from another article). Critics are saying schools from those states will have an unfair recruiting advantage. We are very early in this evolution

“To a certain extent, the Supreme Court ruling is a bit of a sideshow,” Alan told me. “The real change that’s going to affect most athletes playing now is coming a week from Thursday.”

That’s when at least six states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas — will enact laws allowing college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses. A player could, for example, sign an endorsement deal, sell autographs or host a training camp.

 

[javadoc]

Another interesting wrinkle (pasted from another article). Critics are saying schools from those states will have an unfair recruiting advantage. We are very early in this evolution

“To a certain extent, the Supreme Court ruling is a bit of a sideshow,” Alan told me. “The real change that’s going to affect most athletes playing now is coming a week from Thursday.”

That’s when at least six states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas — will enact laws allowing college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses. A player could, for example, sign an endorsement deal, sell autographs or host a training camp.

Endorsements are fine. What will cause real problems is any greater movement toward paying players directly. That's going to raise the bar for entry high enough that some schools will drop out, IMO. And there is a bad optic associated with that outcome as well.

 

[TheCusian]

3rd parties should be barred from paying players, given the giant river of cash going to universities on the backs of players who make a very small % back in scholarship.

The NCAA and member institutions rode the horse till it was dead and now are stuck in the desert with no ride

 

[David321]

What I’m wondering is how will this impact the long anticipated NCAA Football game that’s recently been announced by EA. It’s been way too long.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]