Scotus/NCAA decision

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
100,301
43,393
1
Want to bet the university allows it.....for a fee? Sure Trevor you can get paid $25,000 for an upstate car dealership ad in your Clemson uniform, but Clemson will need 20% of that as a fee for the uniform/ helmet/ logo rights.
bigger payday might be video football game likenesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu00

psu00

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2010
23,397
11,005
1
I think you're missing the point. The whole NIL thing is BS. It isn't actually going to be used for legit endorsements most of the time. What it is going to allow is for teams to offer "packages" to HS recruits.

So for example, you can have boosters guarantee jersey sales. If the jersey doesn't sell, booster X will buy enough to make sure player gets his 100k he's promised etc. X number of local car dealerships will pay for autograph sessions. It will all be just guaranteed money and find creative ways to do it.
True. While most here rightly celebrate the NCAA and Emmert getting curb stomped today, there’s always the unintended consequences that cause the real issues.

The SEC, etc must be loving this now. All the bagmen stuff can be done more openly and as recruiting tools, especially if your in a state with no income tax (Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Washington).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbenedict

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,304
5,263
1
Want to bet the university allows it.....for a fee? Sure Trevor you can get paid $25,000 for an upstate car dealership ad in your Clemson uniform, but Clemson will need 20% of that as a fee for the uniform/ helmet/ logo rights.
This is also probably true, but I have no idea what other wormholes this opens up in terms of contracts or rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu00

lionspride2107

Well-Known Member
Silver Member
May 5, 2021
74
133
1
True. While most here rightly celebrate the NCAA and Emmert getting curb stomped today, there’s always the unintended consequences that cause the real issues.

The SEC, etc must be loving this now. All the bagmen stuff can be done more openly and as recruiting tools, especially if your in a state with no income tax (Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Washington).

Yep, and keep this in mind... When it is all out in the open, it will make it 10 times crazier. Do you think Ole Miss fans will tolerate losing out on Arch Manning because Texas paid him an extra 100k? Fans are crazy with recruiting now, wait until it effectively becomes a free agent process. Which is also why it will be the end of CFB. The cash cow programs will now dominate 10 times more than they already do, to the point where lesser programs will be so outclassed they will effectively be playing at different levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu00

91Joe95

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2003
27,562
19,224
1
You have a great sense of humor. After 116 posts most of which are astounded by the arrogance and stupidity of the NCAA and with the knowing compliance of their member institutions, you now hope that they do the right thing.

I think it should be pretty obvious that I'm a hope and change kind of guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas1945

91Joe95

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2003
27,562
19,224
1
Brett did good on this one. Get him a sixer.

giphy.gif


COLT-45-40-OUNCE-500x500.jpg


Hey, welcome back. Hopefully you and the family had a pretty good vacation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midnighter2

kgilbert78

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2013
8,490
5,193
1
Want to bet the university allows it.....for a fee? Sure Trevor you can get paid $25,000 for an upstate car dealership ad in your Clemson uniform, but Clemson will need 20% of that as a fee for the uniform/ helmet/ logo rights.
As they should. The knife cuts both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu00

Nitt1300

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2008
60,833
18,109
1
I'm trying to see why the end of college sports as we know it today would be a bad thing- I've got nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NC2017

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
5,364
4,763
1
Yes. If the shirt is a dead-ringer for a Clemson jersey, the school can sue the wearer (and the manufacturer), the owner of the billboard, and the producer of the product being advertised (and all of their grandmothers) for trademark infringement. That's usually why you see many athletes in commercials wearing jerseys that you would otherwise find in Africa or Latin America.
I'm not so sure about that. Don't know whether the doctrine of patent exhaustion a la impression landmarks also implies in the context of trademark restrictions.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,140
18,731
1
I'm not so sure about that. Don't know whether the doctrine of patent exhaustion a la impression landmarks also implies in the context of trademark restrictions.

Then there must be another reason that most payers appear in ads in an entirely unrecognizable jerseys.
 

PAgeologist

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
2,522
3,237
1
Lilly, PA
Yes. If the shirt is a dead-ringer for a Clemson jersey, the school can sue the wearer (and the manufacturer), the owner of the billboard, and the producer of the product being advertised (and all of their grandmothers) for trademark infringement. That's usually why you see many athletes in commercials wearing jerseys that you would otherwise find in Africa or Latin America.
I was even thinking a simple orange shirt with "16" put on it. Nothing Clemson related except orange.
 

Roar More

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2004
8,307
2,890
1
Once non-revenue sport teams start to disappear, US Olympic team success will start to decline followed by much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
 

Midnighter2

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2021
1,458
2,281
1
Once non-revenue sport teams start to disappear, US Olympic team success will start to decline followed by much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How does Bucknell support 27 varsity sports without a big time football or basketball program? Dartmouth lists about 34 varsity sports on their website (including two rowing teams - three if you count women's - skiing, squash, and equestrian amongst others...). Carnegie Mellon has 17. How do they fund these without football/basketball revenue? I think the answer is, athletics are valuable to the student experience, and they are an investment in our students. If you don't have millions of dollars in salary, facility construction, social media staff, etc., you can still have sports. True amateur sports I might add.
 

psu00

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2010
23,397
11,005
1
Once non-revenue sport teams start to disappear, US Olympic team success will start to decline followed by much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
You may be right. More unintended consequences that no one is thinking about.
 

PAgeologist

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
2,522
3,237
1
Lilly, PA
Once non-revenue sport teams start to disappear, US Olympic team success will start to decline followed by much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I read somewhere that football and men's hoops are the only 2 sports that consistently generate revenue at universities. Most schools use that revenue to prop up the other sports.

Even the juggernaut PSU wrestling team loses money in it's best years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu00

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,304
5,263
1
When does the enhanced irs start looking to tax all these freebies ?
Interesting question here: why are the benefits the players already get (tuition, room and board, training etc) not taxed? I'm not saying they should be, but if you are moving down the path of them being employees, then this should be taxed, no?
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,140
18,731
1
Interesting question here: why are the benefits the players already get (tuition, room and board, training etc) not taxed? I'm not saying they should be, but if you are moving down the path of them being employees, then this should be taxed, no?

Scholarships covering tuition, mandatory fees, and books are not taxed, which is the case for all students, not just athletes. Grants for room, board, and living stipends are.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,140
18,731
1
Funny, that is the way it worked in the world I grew up. Local 542 Operating Engineers. Pop`s district ...
East-the Delaware River
West-State College
North-New York border
South-Lehigh Valley tunnel

And Biden has nominated this fvcking turd to be the number 2 at the VA. Unbelievable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69

Big 0

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2001
6,446
3,157
1
Emmert stated that the ruling means nothing. I guess he is in denial. Kavanaugh has indicated with his opinion that there may be more to come in the future with regard to athlet compensation. Cases just need to make their way up the chain to the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95

NittPicker

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2001
15,134
14,672
1
Emmert stated that the ruling means nothing. I guess he is in denial. Kavanaugh has indicated with his opinion that there may be more to come in the future with regard to athlet compensation. Cases just need to make their way up the chain to the Supreme Court.
Emmert and the NCAA have been whistling past the graveyard for quite awhile now. Every court loss is spun as not being a big deal. They remind of Baghdad Bob way back when. Get your ass kicked every day but tell the world how awesome you're doing.
 

NC2017

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2015
1,534
2,027
1
Emmert stated that the ruling means nothing.

A textbook example of ignorant arrogance

That's about what I'd expect the president of a multi $billion dollar "non-profit" to say. Emmert will run this train off a cliff, all the while filling his pockets and those of his most loyal sycophants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95

Roar More

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2004
8,307
2,890
1
I am not even close to being a legal scholar and haven't slept at a Holiday Inn since before the pandemic. Could somebody explain to me why this won't mean the end of scholarship limits? I get that it can be argued that the NCAA is an organization and has bi-laws (rules) one must follow to remain a member, but couldn't it be argued that by limiting opportunity, schools are denying athletes educational benefits? Take wrestling for example. The very nature of the scholarship limits guarantees somebody will not get a completely free ride because the NCAA only permit 9.9 scholarships.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LionJim

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
100,301
43,393
1
A textbook example of ignorant arrogance
I happened to flip on the BBC last night and even they thought it was a landmark decision for the business of college sports. This is the BBC for God's sake....they don't have to deal with SCOTUS, NCAA or anywhere near the level of college sports like we do.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
5,364
4,763
1
T am not even close to being a legal scholar and haven't slept at a Holiday Inn since before the pandemic. Could somebody explain to me why this won't mean the end of scholarship limits? I get that it can be argued that the NCAA is an organization and has bi-laws (rules) one must follow to remain a member, but couldn't it be argued that by limiting opportunity, schools are denying athletes educational benefits? Take wrestling for example. The very nature of the scholarship limits guarantees somebody will not get a completely free ride because the NCAA only permit 9.9 scholarships.
it might, but i suspect it won't, for the simple reason that "those" specific ncaa policies were not, to my understanding, what was subject to challenge. And, if I were the ncaa, I'd argue that a uniformly applied limit to help ensure competitive balance doesn't carry the same anticompetitive impact on what you can and can't provide to those athletes who are within the 9.9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionJim

Big 0

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2001
6,446
3,157
1
I think scholarship limits stay. The NFL limits it's roster size and I don't think that is not that dissimilar.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,140
18,731
1
T am not even close to being a legal scholar and haven't slept at a Holiday Inn since before the pandemic. Could somebody explain to me why this won't mean the end of scholarship limits? I get that it can be argued that the NCAA is an organization and has bi-laws (rules) one must follow to remain a member, but couldn't it be argued that by limiting opportunity, schools are denying athletes educational benefits? Take wrestling for example. The very nature of the scholarship limits guarantees somebody will not get a completely free ride because the NCAA only permit 9.9 scholarships.

An individual athlete suing to compel a school to increase scholarships would lose. However, if Cael and PSU decide to abandon the 9.9 limitation and provide a full ride to any wrestler on the squad, there is a very good chance they would prevail.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,140
18,731
1
I think scholarship limits stay. The NFL limits it's roster size and I don't think that is not that dissimilar.

NFL roster limit is part of a CBA between the players' union and owners and is, thus, exempt from antitrust provisions. NCAA limits aren't.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,304
5,263
1
Can someone help me with some internal (within my brain) logic here:

The NCAA is a voluntary organization, right? In other words if OSU, Bama, USC etc wanted to leave to form their own league they could, correct?

As such, the members of the voluntary organization, who also provide input the rules of said organization via committee, agree to abide by the rules of the voluntary organization.

Athletes are not forced to attend NCAA institutions. By choosing to attend NCAA institutions, those athletes are choosing to abide by the rules of those institutions and the larger member organization (the NCAA).

Did I get any of that wrong?

So you can argue the NCAA "money model" isn't fair (but frankly neither is the pay model at any Fortune 500 company), but I don't understand how it would be considered illegal, or a violation of anti-trust law.

If I was an athlete, the source of my frustration would be with the professional leagues who do not allow players to enter the league out of high school (NBA, NFL). It seems like that would be a good target for a lawsuit (e.g. I am legal adult with the skills needed to perform this job; you are excluding me because of my age (yes, I realize "age" as a protected class doesn't kick in until 40, but the principle of ageism is the same)).

I would much rather see players who care more about money to play in the minor leagues and leave college athletics to people who actually want to "play school" (and also want to play a sport).
 

91Joe95

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2003
27,562
19,224
1
Can someone help me with some internal (within my brain) logic here:

The NCAA is a voluntary organization, right? In other words if OSU, Bama, USC etc wanted to leave to form their own league they could, correct?

As such, the members of the voluntary organization, who also provide input the rules of said organization via committee, agree to abide by the rules of the voluntary organization.

Athletes are not forced to attend NCAA institutions. By choosing to attend NCAA institutions, those athletes are choosing to abide by the rules of those institutions and the larger member organization (the NCAA).

Did I get any of that wrong?

So you can argue the NCAA "money model" isn't fair (but frankly neither is the pay model at any Fortune 500 company), but I don't understand how it would be considered illegal, or a violation of anti-trust law.

If I was an athlete, the source of my frustration would be with the professional leagues who do not allow players to enter the league out of high school (NBA, NFL). It seems like that would be a good target for a lawsuit (e.g. I am legal adult with the skills needed to perform this job; you are excluding me because of my age (yes, I realize "age" as a protected class doesn't kick in until 40, but the principle of ageism is the same)).

I would much rather see players who care more about money to play in the minor leagues and leave college athletics to people who actually want to "play school" (and also want to play a sport).

Those leagues have collectively bargained agreements. The ncaa has become a monopoly that has used its power to artificially set wages and restrict earnings.