KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
2 years ago
NCAA has rough day at Supreme Court as justices question whether amateurism concept holds up at all
Dennis Dodd
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/ncaa-has-rough-day-at-supreme-court-as-justices-question-whether-amateurism-concept-holds-up-at-all/ar-BB1fbKmw 

The highest court in the land had questions, lots of questions on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal in the NCAA v. Alston case. Mostly, the justices were asking questions of the NCAA in the latest and perhaps biggest legal challenge the association has faced.


The NCAA did not fare well in the oral arguments over the its ability to regulate education-based benefits. The far-reaching implications of the case could further limit the NCAA's already shrinking power base.

In the moment, it's still a perception battle as there won't be an actual Supreme Court decision until late June. And even then, a Democratic-controlled Congress could put forth NIL legislation that would be much more expansive than anything the NCAA is considering.

It was fascinating to hear the Supreme Court dig down into the elemental conflict that is college sports -- a for-profit business model overseen by a not-for-profit behemoth (NCAA) pushing a version of "amateurism" that exists nowhere else in the world.

"Why does the NCAA get to define what 'pay' is?" asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Why, indeed? At that point, the NCAA was being hung by its own rules manual that states over and over that the athlete experience should be as close to the regular student experience as possible.

The regular student can have its own YouTube channel, be in a band, earn thousands from social media exposure. NCAA athletes are limited to room, books, board, tuition and cost of attendance.

Nearly all the justices poked at the NCAA's reasoning for limiting compensation.

"Antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of the student-athletes, so that is a concern, an overarching concern here," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Here is a breakdown of what went down Wednesday.

Who won?
For now, it's the appellees. Alston's lawyers contend those education-based benefits should be uncapped. That's what the Ninth District Circuit Court ruled last year. The NCAA's defense has been asserting that district Judge Claudia Wilken misapplied the law in her decision while simultaneously holding up its amateurism model in the process.

Judging from the questions from the justices, six of whom are conservative, it did not go well for the nation's powerful amateur body.

"That was pretty damning for the NCAA," said Alicia Jessop, a Pepperdine University law professor.

Jessop puts the projected Supreme Court vote from 5-4 to 7-2 in favor of Alston. The final ruling will come down in late June. NCAA attorney Seth Waxman was put on the defensive by the Supreme Court several times after using the now-familiar argument that any more benefits for athletes would destroy amateurism.

"We have looked at these claims from the NCAA over and over again that each loss was going to hurt college sports and destroy this revered tradition. It's never happened," said Alston attorney Jeffrey Kessler.

What does it mean?
The NCAA has basically asserted that, if its appeal is not granted, the sky will fall on amateur athletics. It says there will be a pay-for-play system that looks a lot like professional sports.

What the NCAA fails to recognize is that we've lived through a professional environment for decades without amateurism collapsing. It started the moment the NCAA allowed free scholarships in 1956. Those were available only for athletes due to their talent.

The system continues today. Former Texas swimmer Joseph Schooling was awarded $740,000 by his country (Singapore) for winning an Olympic medal. Former Oklahoma quarterback Kyle Murray turned professional in baseball -- signing a $5 million contract -- while leading the Sooners to the College Football Playoff.

The NCAA itself negotiates billion-dollar media rights and signs lucrative corporate sponsorships. Meanwhile, athletes' compensation is capped despite that free scholarship. The optics are not good.

None of the justices referenced the widely-recognized black market in recruiting that exists under the table that pays athletes exorbitant sums. The NCAA recognizes that underground income but has not been able to slow it to any degree via its enforcement department.

Kessler stressed that a favorable ruling would be limited only to what is on the table -- uncapping education-related expenses. That's being a bit myopic.

A ruling in favor of Alston would arguably be the NCAA's second-biggest court loss next to Board of Regents v. NCAA in 1984. That case is basically the reason we're here. It opened the spigot on the flow of billions of dollars in media rights into the system.

If that money wasn't there, the plaintiffs wouldn't be suing to get some of it and the NCAA wouldn't be appealing to keep amateurism status quo. For one reason, there wouldn't be enough money in the system for high-powered attorneys to huge fees from their clients.

Example: USA Today estimated the NCAA spent well over $200 million in legal fees to get Wednesday's moment with the Supreme Court.

If the NCAA fails in its appeal, college athletics won't necessarily go down pay-for-play road. Fan interest won't let it. For one, there is nothing about this case that suggests Alabama will stop getting the best players in recruiting and Toledo will suddenly become a national power.

What's next?
The NCAA had a chance to avoid this day back in 2009. That was when former UCLA forward Ed O'Bannon sued because he wasn't allowed to get a cut from the EA Sports basketball video game.

Almost everything you're reading today springs from that moment. Had the NCAA struck a group licensing deal with the athletes, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't be a battleground today. But the NCAA was as determined then to defend the amateurism model as it is today.

That means the association has to make a significant comeback after Wednesday. A conservative court reinforced by the previous administration seems to have done its job -- judging the case on its facts.

That doesn't necessarily mean the appellees will win. These are informed professional opinions on the outcome of Wednesday's events. Call it a legal Final Four breakdown. But there are signs that no matter what happens, the NCAA's influence and power are diminishing.

Even if the NCAA wins its appeal, as previously mentioned, there is speculation a Democratic Congress will fight back with expansive name, image and likeness legislation. The NCAA delayed NIL legislation in January because the Department of Justice wants to review it.

At the same time, the NCAA needs Congress' help to implement its version of NIL. For decades, the NCAA shied away from any federal intervention in its business. Now it can't seem to conduct business without the feds.

On its face, this is not a case about NCAA compensation. This is a case that explores in what can be covered in an athletic scholarship. As of now, that limit is $5,980 for things like computers and international study. Justice Elena Kagan said that figure seemed arbitrary.

She isn't the only one questioning the big picture.

"How do we know," Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "that we're not just destroying the game as it exists? Meaning we're being told by [the NCAA] that all of these education-related payments can become extravagant and, as a result, be viewed by the public as pay for play. Any fix would come after the fact, after the game has been -- after amateurism has been destroyed in college sports. How do we ensure that doesn't happen?"

"Destroying the game" strikes at the heart of the argument. Athletes have been earning exorbitant amounts of money for years. There is cost of attendance that ranges between $2,000-$5,000 per academic year. Bowl gifts are capped at $550. Schools are allowed to pay insurance premiums to protect players' draft value that are worth $80,000 or more.

"That," Justice John Roberts said, "sounds like pay for play."

The very issue the NCAA went to the Supreme Court to outlaw.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
2 years ago
What's this about? Too many words for me to to keep interest in anything NCAA. Sorry.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
2 years ago
“OoOoOo baby love, my baby love”😉😂
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
2 years ago

What's this about? Too many words for me to to keep interest in anything NCAA. Sorry.

I would think it potentially mean:[list][*]the free farm league for the NFL could be drastically changing which will effect player motivations, scouting, and many other aspects that are implicit in the current system[*]College Sports could be the wild wild West in terms of the rich schools and their supporters will generally dominate to an even greater extent than the do now[*]Late Bloomers, who go to smaller or poorer schools, once they show potential, may transfer, because they could get paid to sit the year[*]Players may no longer be screwed and have their bodies used to support the other non-revenue sports without compensation.[*]in short, it could cause absolute chaos in college football (and other sports) but particular to this website, the NFL's farm league.[/list]
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

I would think it potentially mean:[list]

  • the free farm league for the NFL could be drastically changing which will effect player motivations, scouting, and many other aspects that are implicit in the current system
  • College Sports could be the wild wild West in terms of the rich schools and their supporters will generally dominate to an even greater extent than the do now[*]Late Bloomers, who go to smaller or poorer schools, once they show potential, may transfer, because they could get paid to sit the year[*]Players may no longer be screwed and have their bodies used to support the other non-revenue sports without compensation.[*]in short, it could cause absolute chaos in college football (and other sports) but particular to this website, the NFL's farm league.[/list]

    Originally Posted by: KRK 

  • Wouldn't it be better to have a minor league for High School kids to go into instead of college -- at least as an option? You're in college to get an education, stop bitching about not being paid.
    UserPostedImage
    Cheesey
    2 years ago

    Wouldn't it be better to have a minor league for High School kids to go into instead of college -- at least as an option? You're in college to get an education, stop bitching about not being paid.

    Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



    They know the schools are making a boatload of money off of sports, so the kids want their chunk of the dough.
    And let’s face it, the kids that go to college, that go for the sports, aren’t for the most part going for an education, they are going with the hope of becoming millionaire atheletes.
    UserPostedImage
    beast
    2 years ago
    Most the people in college don't go to get an education, that's a false narrative.

    Most go to get a piece of paper saying they graduated, so they can check off a box when they apply for jobs which offers more money than they otherwise would of been offered.

    And a good number of people don't work directly in the field they got their degree it. So really most go to college for more money, not actually to get an education.

    Also, just because you graduated, does NOT mean you are educated, because most schools just check weather or not you jumped through their hoops, not if you actually got educated. Some really really stupid people graduate.

    And that's especially been true since wall street has taken over and wanted to do what's best for them and bought politicians and so many of the good manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas making it much much harder to get a decent paying job without a college degree.


    And people whom think they're going to get rich in the NFL go to college because either their parents make them, or their is no good alternative to sit the minimum three years post highschool.

    Plus, the NCAA and schools have really brought them on themselves, with being over the top, stupid rule tight. If you want to forbid money, that's one thing, but they also forbid food and other resources while these players were making you millions or billions. The player at minimum should be offered truely free ride, which includes free everything... not just classes, but room and board, free books, free food, free workout areas, maybe free daycare if that's a thing you offer to professors or other students. But instead they only offered "full rides" which did NOT cover all the costs with going to college and living.


    I'm not saying NCAA players should get rich, but they should have their time and efforts count for something. Including I believe sports should count as soon me sort of class credits, they're basically a gym class.
    UserPostedImage
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (10h) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (11h) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (12h) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (14h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (15h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (18h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    6h / Around The NFL / beast

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.