In a 9-0 decision SCOUTS upheld a lower court ruling against the NCAA barring them from limiting certain financial benefits from athletes. Going a step further, Kavanuagh ripped them in a concurring opinion pointing out they are not above the law and no other business in the country is so bold as to think they can conspire to depress wages by saying their business is built on depressing wages. Kavanaugh points out other items not even covered in this case could also be in violation of Anti-Trust laws in a direct show across the bow of the NCAA.
In a time where no one can agree on anything, we have everyone agreeing that the NCAA sucks.
NEW: In a victory for college athletes, SCOTUS unanimously invalidates a portion of the NCAA's "amateurism" rules. The court says the NCAA can no longer bar colleges from providing athletes with education-related benefits such as free laptops or paid post-graduate internships.
This is going to be huge. I don't know what the ripple effects are going to end up being, but this is going to change both higher education and the sports world in big ways.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-21-2021, 12:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is going to be huge. I don't know what the ripple effects are going to end up being, but this is going to change both higher education and the sports world in big ways.
Yep. I think the NCAA as we know it will be going away in the near future. It is more and more likely that the "power 5" will break off and go full blown "pro" sports leagues while the rest will remain in setup more similar to traditional NCAA models but with still more freedoms. Either way, today's ruling made it very clear that simply wanting to not pay people because of "tradition" isn't going to work anymore.
I wonder if this will have unforeseen consequences. There are many schools that have lots of money, but not so great sports programs.
How about schools in the IVY league? Now an athlete that is serious about education, will be even more tempted to schools that have top notch programs. I mean if an athlete has no interest in education then fine, they'll go where they always have. But would more education benefits from Harvard and post-grad internships ,etc. be a much larger draw than say from Iowa or West Virginia or Washington. Your big programs are always going to get the best of the best, but I wonder if those who are serious about their education, but on the fence as to where to attend will be lured away from the weaker/lesser schools of the Power 5 and be drawn to that promise of higher education.
From the example above, going to Harvard is expensive outside of room/board. Boston/Cambridge has super expensive cost of living. And if a highly intelligent, but very poor (financially) athlete can now be given laptops, books, perhaps subway fare, of campus housing stipend, etc., then this could really tip the scales toward medial to exceptional athletes who want an education actually pursuing that path in favor of settling for an affordable education at a lesser school.
(06-21-2021, 03:15 PM)Stewy Wrote: I wonder if this will have unforeseen consequences. There are many schools that have lots of money, but not so great sports programs.
How about schools in the IVY league? Now an athlete that is serious about education, will be even more tempted to schools that have top notch programs. I mean if an athlete has no interest in education then fine, they'll go where they always have. But would more education benefits from Harvard and post-grad internships ,etc. be a much larger draw than say from Iowa or West Virginia or Washington. Your big programs are always going to get the best of the best, but I wonder if those who are serious about their education, but on the fence as to where to attend will be lured away from the weaker/lesser schools of the Power 5 and be drawn to that promise of higher education.
From the example above, going to Harvard is expensive outside of room/board. Boston/Cambridge has super expensive cost of living. And if a highly intelligent, but very poor (financially) athlete can now be given laptops, books, perhaps subway fare, of campus housing stipend, etc., then this could really tip the scales toward medial to exceptional athletes who want an education actually pursuing that path in favor of settling for an affordable education at a lesser school.
It's an interesting thought.
The Ivy League schools can't give athletic scholarships so they have always been in a weird situation. It is a league driven issue versus NCAA but has always made it a really interesting case study in itself.
On one hand, I do think these players deserve to be compensated. I've also never understood what prevented them from making outside income while in school (Ex: A student athlete should be able to take a job doing a commerical in the same way that a regular student can earn income in any way they choose.)
On the other hand, this is just going to make college athletics more top heavy. Mid-level and smaller programs will fall further and further from being able to compete while larger programs will only further cement themselves as being so far ahead of everyone else.
I'd feel a LOT better about this if they did away with Title IX, or reworked it where it makes some actual sense. I don't think people realize that just because some of these sports and some of the teams generate so much income that doesn't mean the university is walking away with tons of profits. All of these dollars are used to subsidize all of the other programs that lose money, which is pretty much every that isn't men's basketball, football, and some baseball teams.
It's absolutely crazy when you look at some of these athletic department budgets. Most of them are lucky to even break even, and that's goes for the big guys too. It's really easy to say that because the football program generates millions and millions of dollars that those players deserve some money. That makes sense up until you realize that income is used to fund women's basketball, womens soccer, women softball, women's track, women's tennis, women's golf, etc. When it's all said and done, there's not much money left.
I worry about what this really means if no changes are made. A school like Cincinnati could definitely afford to compete a little bit if they weren't force to fund an equal number of scholarships and everything that comes with them (coaching and training staffs, transportation costs, medical, training equipment, etc.) But the fact of the matter is no matter how much their football and baskeball teams make they just don't have that much money. It goes to all of this stuff, stuff like paying for the women's basketball team to play 15 road games all around the country. Larger programs can work around this but I'm afraid schools like UC can't.
Fwiw, I think the solution to this is tear up Title IX. Make any sport that isn't profitable a "club sport" or offering partial scholarships. Make the leagues for these regional to reduce costs. Then let the players that actually earning the money share in the spoils. That way you can have some more parity.
(06-21-2021, 04:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I do think these players deserve to be compensated. I've also never understood what prevented them from making outside income while in school (Ex: A student athlete should be able to take a job doing a commerical in the same way that a regular student can earn income in any way they choose.)
On the other hand, this is just going to make college athletics more top heavy. Mid-level and smaller programs will fall further and further from being able to compete while larger programs will only further cement themselves as being so far ahead of everyone else.
I'd feel a LOT better about this if they did away with Title IX, or reworked it where it makes some actual sense. I don't think people realize that just because some of these sports and some of the teams generate so much income that doesn't mean the university is walking away with tons of profits. All of these dollars are used to subsidize all of the other programs that lose money, which is pretty much every that isn't men's basketball, football, and some baseball teams.
It's absolutely crazy when you look at some of these athletic department budgets. Most of them are lucky to even break even, and that's goes for the big guys too. It's really easy to say that because the football program generates millions and millions of dollars that those players deserve some money. That makes sense up until you realize that income is used to fund women's basketball, womens soccer, women softball, women's track, women's tennis, women's golf, etc. When it's all said and done, there's not much money left.
I worry about what this really means if no changes are made. A school like Cincinnati could definitely afford to compete a little bit if they weren't force to fund an equal number of scholarships and everything that comes with them (coaching and training staffs, transportation costs, medical, training equipment, etc.) But the fact of the matter is no matter how much their football and baskeball teams make they just don't have that much money. It goes to all of this stuff, stuff like paying for the women's basketball team to play 15 road games all around the country. Larger programs can work around this but I'm afraid schools like UC can't.
Fwiw, I think the solution to this is tear up Title IX. Make any sport that isn't profitable a "club sport" or offering partial scholarships. Make the leagues for these regional to reduce costs. Then let the players that actually earning the money share in the spoils. That way you can have some more parity.
Just my 2 cents...
College sports don’t have to be profitable or even self sustaining that is a myth that has evolved from the arms race that is current big time athletics. 75 years ago no sport was profitable and they weren’t expected to be so, that came from the explosion of TV and apparel deals. It can be done and is done as Division 2 gives athletic scholarships and NO SPORT is profitable and very few teams in the entire division and any sport are self sustaining. The incentive to offer the sports is the reason they were first added to the schools and the reason they are in high schools, to offer the student a full experience while creating a sense of school pride. Plus, there is the added bonus that successful sports does translate to increased enrollment.
Now that said, you don’t see million dollar coaches or 50 million dollar stadiums. You don’t have massive stipends, elaborate training tables (athletic dining), or super training facilities. If all those things disappear though the sports can still remain and the actual goal of “student athletics” can still be attained.
(06-21-2021, 03:54 PM)Au165 Wrote: The Ivy League schools can't give athletic scholarships so they have always been in a weird situation. It is a league driven issue versus NCAA but has always made it a really interesting case study in itself.
Fair enough but there are other leagues that offer a better education and are expensive, which fit a similar mold Notre Dame, Duke, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, etc. Yes those are power 5, but I am sure there are examples outside of the power 5.
My overall point is that this could change the landscape of who gets the best student athletes.....the dummies will still go to Alabama.
I’m still confused. Does this mean Alabama can pay their players the most? Does the Akron women’s bowling team backup get the same pay as an Alabama football starting RB?
(06-21-2021, 10:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m still confused. Does this mean Alabama can pay their players the most? Does the Akron women’s bowling team backup get the same pay as an Alabama football starting RB?
(06-21-2021, 04:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I do think these players deserve to be compensated. I've also never understood what prevented them from making outside income while in school (Ex: A student athlete should be able to take a job doing a commerical in the same way that a regular student can earn income in any way they choose.)
On the other hand, this is just going to make college athletics more top heavy. Mid-level and smaller programs will fall further and further from being able to compete while larger programs will only further cement themselves as being so far ahead of everyone else.
I'd feel a LOT better about this if they did away with Title IX, or reworked it where it makes some actual sense. I don't think people realize that just because some of these sports and some of the teams generate so much income that doesn't mean the university is walking away with tons of profits. All of these dollars are used to subsidize all of the other programs that lose money, which is pretty much every that isn't men's basketball, football, and some baseball teams.
It's absolutely crazy when you look at some of these athletic department budgets. Most of them are lucky to even break even, and that's goes for the big guys too. It's really easy to say that because the football program generates millions and millions of dollars that those players deserve some money. That makes sense up until you realize that income is used to fund women's basketball, womens soccer, women softball, women's track, women's tennis, women's golf, etc. When it's all said and done, there's not much money left.
I worry about what this really means if no changes are made. A school like Cincinnati could definitely afford to compete a little bit if they weren't force to fund an equal number of scholarships and everything that comes with them (coaching and training staffs, transportation costs, medical, training equipment, etc.) But the fact of the matter is no matter how much their football and baskeball teams make they just don't have that much money. It goes to all of this stuff, stuff like paying for the women's basketball team to play 15 road games all around the country. Larger programs can work around this but I'm afraid schools like UC can't.
Fwiw, I think the solution to this is tear up Title IX. Make any sport that isn't profitable a "club sport" or offering partial scholarships. Make the leagues for these regional to reduce costs. Then let the players that actually earning the money share in the spoils. That way you can have some more parity.
Just my 2 cents...
So, I provide to you a wrench in this. Yes, men's sports tend to bring in more revenue because people, stupidly I might add, are not as interested in women's sports. However, what it you have an athletics program where the men are more profitable, but the women's teams are more successful? What if your men's basketball team brings in the money but the women's team is the one that makes it to the dance? What if your football team brings in money, but your softball team makes it to the WCWS and the football team doesn't sniff the playoffs/a bowl game?
This highlights my problem with college athletics, in general. The purpose of college athletics is to attract students through publicity and to help provide opportunities for students that otherwise may not have them. If you recognize that as the purpose, then Title IX is necessary because, as we saw prior to its enactment, there was a gap in those opportunities for men and women. Truthfully, there still is a gap. Go to any school with a decent athletics program and do an analysis of their spending on student athletes and I would wager in 90% of those programs the spending was weighted more heavily towards the men's sports because of the ways around these rules that exist (I used to help prepare the yearly NCAA report for a D1 school from the financials side, I know the numbers and how they get massaged).
What really needs to happen? We need to stop treating college athletics as the recruiting grounds for pros. That's it. Period. The amount of attention athletics gets it heightened tremendously by the fact that the country is watching to see who is going to end up in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. What's the draft class going to look like? Who will be picked up in free agency? Remove all of that and suddenly college sports isn't as big. Guys trying to make the NFL go to CFL out of high school, or some Euro league, instead. Now a scholarship can go to someone who wants to play football and study something meaningful rather than something that the other guy would've never used.
Anyway, that's just my opinion on all of this.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-21-2021, 10:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m still confused. Does this mean Alabama can pay their players the most? Does the Akron women’s bowling team backup get the same pay as an Alabama football starting RB?
(06-22-2021, 12:27 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Officially yes, but unofficially probably not.
Not even officially. So here's what happens with TIX. The theory behind it is that equal funds needs to be provided to both women's and men's athletics. It's not a one-for-one thing, though. So what will happen in most athletics programs is there will be men's football, basketball, and baseball. Maybe one or two others. But on the women's side there will be basketball, swimming, diving, field hockey, soccer, softball, track and field, cross country, lacrosse, etc., etc. They do this so they can spread out the funding for the women's teams while concentrating it for the men. So the football, basketball, or baseball team (whichever makes the most) gets a shit ton more than any individual women's team. There will be more full rides available, better pay for staff, etc.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Grading talent always has flaws. I provided Rivals top 100 from 2015 as an example to the long range success rate approximating a pay scale of worth. I'm for players getting all they can but the success rate is far from guaranteed. Maybe you should get paid more your sophomore year when you are more proven....have like an entry wage your 1st year. This is all unknown territory.
(06-22-2021, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I provide to you a wrench in this. Yes, men's sports tend to bring in more revenue because people, stupidly I might add, are not as interested in women's sports. However, what it you have an athletics program where the men are more profitable, but the women's teams are more successful? What if your men's basketball team brings in the money but the women's team is the one that makes it to the dance? What if your football team brings in money, but your softball team makes it to the WCWS and the football team doesn't sniff the playoffs/a bowl game?
I don't think this really provides a wrench at all. People have long argued that athletes that generate millions upon millions of dollars for their respective universities and conferences deserve to be fairly compensated.
So that leaves one with a very simple question; Do you believe this to be true or not?
The problem is that too many people look at these debates on the surface level. It's easy, and it feels good to to say "Yeah, these players make so much money, they're getting ripped off. They deserve to paid a decent amount."
It's also easy and feels good to say "Yeah, I think women's sports are just as important as the men's and they deserve support too." (Flying on chartered planes and playing a national schedule, full training staff and equipment, nicely furnished locker rooms, full rides and respectable ammentites, etc.)
The problem is you can't do both, at least not fairly. One side or the other is going to have to make some serious concessions. Either the profitable men's teams see a very small percentage of the pie because a lot of the dollars go to subsidizing other sports. Or the women's teams see a lot of their spending reduced (regional schedule and bussed to games, high school level locker room, lower staff salaries) so that the men's teams can be compensated for the dollars they generate.
I'm not saying there's necessarily a "right" answer. It's incredibly complicated. But too many people pretend schools can somehow magically do all of the above, and that everyone gets what they consider a fair shake. But unfortunately that's not how this works. The money simply isn't there.
Fwiw, I would recommend anyone who is interested in this type of stuff to take a look at this. It's the athletic deparment budgets for DI programs. You'll see a number of them actually operate in the red. Ohio State is one of them! And most of them aren't walking away with tens of millions of dollars. Their margins are razor thin.
(06-22-2021, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: because people, stupidly I might add, are not as interested in women's sports.
Why are people stupid for not being interested in watching women's sports?
I think we all know the big sports in the US, football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. There is no womens football or baseball. Their level of play in basketball and hockey is around the equivalent of a Jr. High men's team. And last I checked people aren't tuning into 7th grade boy's basketball on ESPN.
So I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying people are stupid for not being interesting in things like track, tennis and gymnastics? Or are you saying they're stupid because they don't want to watch a very low level of basketball being played?
(06-22-2021, 11:35 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Why are people stupid for not being interested in watching women's sports?
I think we all know the big sports in the US, football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. There is no womens football or baseball. Their level of play in basketball and hockey is around the equivalent of a Jr. High men's team. And last I checked people aren't tuning into 7th grade boy's basketball on ESPN.
So I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying people are stupid for not being interesting in things like track, tennis and gymnastics? Or are you saying they're stupid because they don't want to watch a very low level of basketball being played?
A very low level of basketball? Man, you really need to watch some more women's basketball. It's about the only sport I ever go to here on campus. Those ladies are brutal, sometimes. And the softball games? Yeah, that is some awesome stuff.
But hey, thanks for showing your sexist streak.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-22-2021, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A very low level of basketball? Man, you really need to watch some more women's basketball. It's about the only sport I ever go to here on campus. Those ladies are brutal, sometimes. And the softball games? Yeah, that is some awesome stuff.
But hey, thanks for showing your sexist streak.
There's nothing sexist about it. It's simply a fact. A high level 13-14 year old AAU team would easily beat the NCAA D1 Women's champs.
Look, if you enjoy the women's game then that's great. I have no problem with that. But please don't tell me what I need to watch or accuse of being sexist. I've been around the game my entire life. Nothing I'm saying here is remotely untrue or unfair.
Take a look at this kid here as an example, who UC is currently recruiting. This video is from when the kid was 13 years old:
(06-22-2021, 02:58 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: There's nothing sexist about it. It's simply a fact. A high level 13-14 year old AAU team would easily beat the NCAA D1 Women's champs.
Look, if you enjoy the women's game then that's great. I have no problem with that. But please don't tell me what I need to watch or accuse of being sexist. I've been around the game my entire life. Nothing I'm saying here is remotely untrue or unfair.
Take a look at this kid here as an example, who UC is currently recruiting. This video is from when the kid was 13 years old:
Yep, nothing sexist at all about being definitively sexist in your statements.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Kavanaugh has been a pleasantly surprising addition to the courts, at least as far as conservative judges go.
He had a rough opening and his statements at his hearing made me fear he would rule against "liberal" cases out of spite and malice, but he's had some pretty good rulings, votes and statements.
Better than expected performance from him thus far, granted I expected nothing.
(06-22-2021, 02:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But hey, thanks for showing your sexist streak.
I don't think he said anything sexist.
If women's sport is low level and hence less attractive might be a matter of perspective, but I often feel the same way, eg. with soccer. It's not sexist to perceive it that way.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
