Athletes vs NCAA

1) athletes should have the right to transfer at any time just like these millionaire coaches can leave any damn time they want.
2) health insurance for every D1 student post graduation. 1 year post for non revenue generating sports. 2 years for revenue generating sports.
 
1) athletes should have the right to transfer at any time just like these millionaire coaches can leave any damn time they want.
2) health insurance for every D1 student post graduation. 1 year post for non revenue generating sports. 2 years for revenue generating sports.
I agree, but why should non-revenue generating sports get less health care? That would also violate Title IX.
 
This is also very STRONG law if you look at the evolution of the case. The District Court, Appellate, and SCOTUS were all on the same page on this one. I don’t think I have ever read a case where the SCOTUS unanimously agreed with the liberal 9th circuit.

I saw in the NCAA press release how they were trying to talk tuff about still having discretion without acknowledging that the exercise of their discretion has to be objectively reasonable.

Looks like the NCAA will need to get “molywopped” in court a few more times before they get the message.

First, NCAA is almost a monopoly. They do need to be reigned in. I agree that athletes in revenue generating sports are undercompensated for their skills but, there is going to be issues if universities are allowed to pay players. What does the five star athlete get v a three star athlete. What is five star is a flame out and the three star is a stud. Is there in inclining and declining scale? What about women's sports and Title IX. What about the non revenue mens sports. I agree with SCOTUS that laptops, grad school, food, possible transportation could be included but there has to be a limit or cap set somewhere. College athletics should still be based on education. The term student athlete should still exist.

@MacDre I thought your daughter was straight to Pros? Isn't US Soccer v NWSL more important? just a look back. Still have respect for Richmond but Oakland is still cooler..
 
I agree, but why should non-revenue generating sports get less health care? That would also violate Title IX.

would it be a violation if the payments were after graduation? While in school yes for sure.

it's ridiculous these coaches make 5 million a year. 4 million of that could pay a student 333 students 1000 per month for a year! 600+ students 500 per month and so on.
 
1) athletes should have the right to transfer at any time just like these millionaire coaches can leave any damn time they want.
2) health insurance for every D1 student post graduation. 1 year post for non revenue generating sports. 2 years for revenue generating sports.

In a limited way, they do. NCAA has a post-concussion program in which any student-athlete who suffered a concussion in his/her sport can et a free checkup and some sort of support up to 50 years after graduation.

I may have some of the details wrong. I heard about this from an email to my son who graduated way back in 2015.
 
First, NCAA is almost a monopoly. They do need to be reigned in. I agree that athletes in revenue generating sports are undercompensated for their skills but, there is going to be issues if universities are allowed to pay players. What does the five star athlete get v a three star athlete. What is five star is a flame out and the three star is a stud. Is there in inclining and declining scale? What about women's sports and Title IX. What about the non revenue mens sports. I agree with SCOTUS that laptops, grad school, food, possible transportation could be included but there has to be a limit or cap set somewhere. College athletics should still be based on education. The term student athlete should still exist.

@MacDre I thought your daughter was straight to Pros? Isn't US Soccer v NWSL more important? just a look back. Still have respect for Richmond but Oakland is still cooler..
The SCOTUS finessed this decision because athletes can now get paid through educational on the job training type internships. When I was in law school BIGLAW paid law clerks the same as their junior associates which was about $2,500 per week.
So, if I had a son that was an all star football recruit, I’d argue that a 2 million dollar per year coaching apprenticeship is reasonable because assistant coaches at Alabama are making more than 2 million annually and the head coach is making more than 10 million annually.

I’d imagine it would be reasonable to negotiate the length of the internships. Maybe even create some type of free agency for athletes where “ you know what talks and you know what walks.”

All of my cousins live in Oakland and Berkeley. All of those sissies were too scared to come to Richmond and hang out with me so I spent most of my time at my aunts house in deep East Oakland or my other aunts house on the N Oakland/Berkeley border. I have agree, the Town is cooler. Town Bizz!

I have no idea what my kid is gonna do because the options keep changing.
 
Love the optimism on this thread, but since we are soccer parents primarily, this ruling is not good for our crew.

Biggest beneficiaries will be top level football players. To a lesser extent, top men's basketball players. Everyone else, more negative than positive.

NCAA will lose its stronghold. Top football schools will opt out of the NCAA league and form their own. No NCAA rules, no Title 9 requirements. A lot of $ to be made that can go to paying football players. Schools not in the Top 30 football teams will remain in NCAA but eliminate football programs. Too costly. Eliminate football's 80 scholarships and don't need those for Title 9 compliance. All olympic sports will take a huge cut - track, volleyball, and yes, soccer. If programs are not cut, scholarships for olympic sports will be reduced.

EVERY sport on campus is funded by football (and to a lesser extent basketball). If football players are going to take a much bigger share of their pie, either the federal government will need to fund the difference at all schools across the country (not happening) or BIG cuts will need to be made. There's just no other option.
 
Love the optimism on this thread, but since we are soccer parents primarily, this ruling is not good for our crew.

Biggest beneficiaries will be top level football players. To a lesser extent, top men's basketball players. Everyone else, more negative than positive.

NCAA will lose its stronghold. Top football schools will opt out of the NCAA league and form their own. No NCAA rules, no Title 9 requirements. A lot of $ to be made that can go to paying football players. Schools not in the Top 30 football teams will remain in NCAA but eliminate football programs. Too costly. Eliminate football's 80 scholarships and don't need those for Title 9 compliance. All olympic sports will take a huge cut - track, volleyball, and yes, soccer. If programs are not cut, scholarships for olympic sports will be reduced.

EVERY sport on campus is funded by football (and to a lesser extent basketball). If football players are going to take a much bigger share of their pie, either the federal government will need to fund the difference at all schools across the country (not happening) or BIG cuts will need to be made. There's just no other option.
How does opting out of NCAA mean no Title IX? Title 9 is a federal law, not an NCAA rule. You don’t get out that easy.

As long as they are educational institutions which receive federal funding, title IX applies. What school is going to give up student loan support, Pell Grants, and NSF funding? You’d lose your entire science division in 3 years.
 
Here’s my take. Colleges will not be happy to give up profits to athletes.
1. Top athletes will get paid more but they will end up deducting tuition/room fees of $200k for a D1 school
2. Top athletes will make tons of money with commercial endorsements
3. This will kill scholarships to most of the smaller sports
4. Expect smaller rosters for most sports
5. Another lawsuit will come out where 97% of the student population (publicly funded universities) will complain that schools are creating a special tier of students (elite paid athletes) and public funds shouldn’t be used to benefit them.
 
Love the optimism on this thread, but since we are soccer parents primarily, this ruling is not good for our crew.

Biggest beneficiaries will be top level football players. To a lesser extent, top men's basketball players. Everyone else, more negative than positive.

NCAA will lose its stronghold. Top football schools will opt out of the NCAA league and form their own. No NCAA rules, no Title 9 requirements. A lot of $ to be made that can go to paying football players. Schools not in the Top 30 football teams will remain in NCAA but eliminate football programs. Too costly. Eliminate football's 80 scholarships and don't need those for Title 9 compliance. All olympic sports will take a huge cut - track, volleyball, and yes, soccer. If programs are not cut, scholarships for olympic sports will be reduced.

EVERY sport on campus is funded by football (and to a lesser extent basketball). If football players are going to take a much bigger share of their pie, either the federal government will need to fund the difference at all schools across the country (not happening) or BIG cuts will need to be made. There's just no other option.

The Power 5 and FBS members have already broken away from NCAA restrictions to a degree, but I don't know why they would want to leave. The uneven voting system puts them pretty much in charge of the NCAA anyway.

As for Title IX, it's not the NCAA that enforces that, and there is nothing in this SCOTUS opinion that has any impact on it.
 
Here’s my take. Colleges will not be happy to give up profits to athletes.
1. Top athletes will get paid more but they will end up deducting tuition/room fees of $200k for a D1 school
2. Top athletes will make tons of money with commercial endorsements
3. This will kill scholarships to most of the smaller sports
4. Expect smaller rosters for most sports
5. Another lawsuit will come out where 97% of the student population (publicly funded universities) will complain that schools are creating a special tier of students (elite paid athletes) and public funds shouldn’t be used to benefit them.

Commercial endorsements paid to individual student-athletes should have no impact on any school, since the money is coming from outside advertisers.
 
The SCOTUS finessed this decision because athletes can now get paid through educational on the job training type internships. When I was in law school BIGLAW paid law clerks the same as their junior associates which was about $2,500 per week.
So, if I had a son that was an all star football recruit, I’d argue that a 2 million dollar per year coaching apprenticeship is reasonable because assistant coaches at Alabama are making more than 2 million annually and the head coach is making more than 10 million annually.

I’d imagine it would be reasonable to negotiate the length of the internships. Maybe even create some type of free agency for athletes where “ you know what talks and you know what walks.”

All of my cousins live in Oakland and Berkeley. All of those sissies were too scared to come to Richmond and hang out with me so I spent most of my time at my aunts house in deep East Oakland or my other aunts house on the N Oakland/Berkeley border. I have agree, the Town is cooler. Town Bizz!

I have no idea what my kid is gonna do because the options keep changing.
The SCOTUS finessed this decision because athletes can now get paid through educational on the job training type internships. When I was in law school BIGLAW paid law clerks the same as their junior associates which was about $2,500 per week.
So, if I had a son that was an all star football recruit, I’d argue that a 2 million dollar per year coaching apprenticeship is reasonable because assistant coaches at Alabama are making more than 2 million annually and the head coach is making more than 10 million annually.

I’d imagine it would be reasonable to negotiate the length of the internships. Maybe even create some type of free agency for athletes where “ you know what talks and you know what walks.”

All of my cousins live in Oakland and Berkeley. All of those sissies were too scared to come to Richmond and hang out with me so I spent most of my time at my aunts house in deep East Oakland or my other aunts house on the N Oakland/Berkeley border. I have agree, the Town is cooler. Town Bizz!

I have no idea what my kid is gonna do because the options keep changing.

Coaching is not a degree you can get at many colleges.. you could stretch Sports Management but really most elite athletes are General Studies, Criminal Justice or Communications but how do you stretch those into a coaching internship. Second, how do you intern while you are playing? Are you getting paid $100K to coach flag football. Grad Assistants get their schooling so you could argue that. Maybe you force redshirt for internships but even then you have an issue. Now if you have external internships from boosters are you now outside the bounds of education and how do you justify that against Title IX. There is no way a player will make 6figures in internships as a player. NO WAY.

Glad to see you have seen the light for your daughter and have adjusted your periphery.

Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles will always be the best. I have walked the Richmond Mall and have walked around Lake Merritt after midnight. Not sure which was less smart.
 
You can look up what college soccer coaches get paid at public universities. Most make under $100k. AC at UCLA is likely at the top with $200k. Some other UC head coaches make well less than $100k. Many assistants make $40k or less. With a max of 14 D1 scholarships and the coaches pay scale there is not a lot of money for women's soccer to start. Even less for men. Anything that gives more money to top football or basketball players will ultimately mean less money for soccer coaches and players. The money has to come from somewhere.
 
You can look up what college soccer coaches get paid at public universities. Most make under $100k. AC at UCLA is likely at the top with $200k. Some other UC head coaches make well less than $100k. Many assistants make $40k or less. With a max of 14 D1 scholarships and the coaches pay scale there is not a lot of money for women's soccer to start. Even less for men. Anything that gives more money to top football or basketball players will ultimately mean less money for soccer coaches and players. The money has to come from somewhere.
Once again, at a publicly funded university, I don't see how they can offer something to male athletes and not female athletes under Title IX.
 
Once again, at a publicly funded university, I don't see how they can offer something to male athletes and not female athletes under Title IX.
My alma matter CSUF dropped football back in 1990 because it was too expensive. They focused on baseball and soccer to some extent.

I could see private institutions benefiting from these changes. They will have enough loopholes to go after the top athletes without having to follow other rules.

Public institutions could easily cancel football programs if they cannot offer the same benefits to female athletes (Title IX) .

At what point is it worth paying star athletes so much just to say they have a football program or basketball program.
Someone is going to suffer for the consequences of lost income to the university.
 
My alma matter CSUF dropped football back in 1990 because it was too expensive. They focused on baseball and soccer to some extent.

I could see private institutions benefiting from these changes. They will have enough loopholes to go after the top athletes without having to follow other rules.

Public institutions could easily cancel football programs if they cannot offer the same benefits to female athletes (Title IX) .

At what point is it worth paying star athletes so much just to say they have a football program or basketball program.
Someone is going to suffer for the consequences of lost income to the university.
I remember when CSUF got ranked for the first time back in the day in football. Coach Murphy was a Legend. Leon Wood put on a show and upset UNLV :) Go Titans!
 
How does opting out of NCAA mean no Title IX? Title 9 is a federal law, not an NCAA rule. You don’t get out that easy.

As long as they are educational institutions which receive federal funding, title IX applies. What school is going to give up student loan support, Pell Grants, and NSF funding? You’d lose your entire science division in 3 years.
If you don't provide 80 football scholarships any longer because your players are being paid outside the NCAA system, you no longer have to offer 80 scholarships on the women's side, so cut the programs. Likewise, if Fresno State decides to cut football, that will eliminate 80 scholarships on the girls side too. Men's soccer will take an even bigger hit. See below...

Suddenly your $5-$10K annual payments to your soccer club is looking like a pipedream for a future payoff.


This is a good summary from the Washington Post:

Alston will change everything, slowly at first; but within three years, I fully expect a completely different American sports business landscape. Here are some of the changes I foresee:
The biggest football schools will immediately explore leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a new league that pays players. I believe these discussions have been happening for a long time, but now, they will accelerate. The NCAA FBS football (a.k.a. Division I) includes 130 schools, but the reality is that perhaps only 25 or 30 have the budget and resources to play at the absolute highest level; the rest are schedule-fillers, notwithstanding the rare upset now and then. Alabama, Auburn, Ohio State, Clemson, USC, Michigan, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and the like will explore a Super League similar to the effort made by Europe’s top professional soccer clubs this spring. This new Super League of College Football will explore direct salary compensation of players, but probably only if they can get other “special” legislation that no other industry gets, such as exemption from workers’ compensation liability.

Schools that don’t have major football programs will explore eliminating the sport. These schools know big programs don’t care about them, and they also know the majors are looking at programs that require more capital. Deploying a football team is enormously expensive, and the vast majority of non-majors simply shouldn’t be fielding one — if the players aren’t properly trained and equipped, it’s too dangerous. Many universities have ignored this, however, and gone ahead anyway. But Alston is going to supercharge the recruiting wars for talent, and many schools won’t, and shouldn’t, keep up.
U.S. Olympic teams will wind up needing major support from the federal government. College football revenue has driven Olympic success for a long time. The popular U.S. women’s national soccer team? Nearly all of its players were trained by highly paid coaches at top-level facilities at major football-playing schools. Those coaches and facilities were largely paid for with money generated by the efforts of football players.
This dynamic plays out with the U.S. national volleyball team, many American track and field stars, and many other athletes in other disciplines. Football money largely pays for college coaches and top facilities, travel and resources. But if more of that cash goes to paying football players, the subsidies for Olympic sports will slow to a trickle. The federal government will have to make a choice about whether to use taxpayer dollars to fund Olympic sports, as many other countries do.

Enormous battles over Title IX will come. Over the last generation, many men’s sports in college have been eliminated or drained of resources, and administrators often blamed Title IX compliance rules. At football-playing schools, the football team accounts for about 80 scholarships. That’s a lot for one sport. Title IX essentially mandates equal treatment and opportunity for female athletes, so many schools have founded and supported sports for women over the last generation to balance out football, while eliminating many men’s sports.
Alston could play out one of two ways with respect to Title IX. If the major football schools opt out of the NCAA system completely, and their new model doesn’t rely on university funds or scholarships at all, they could eliminate many women’s sports because they won’t need to provide an equivalent number of women’s scholarships to match football scholarships. If non-major football schools drop their football programs, they might also drop women’s sports, for the same reason.
 
This is also going to impact high school sports. Why play football high school and go to school? Star athletes can do home school and spend more time training and playing football in some club league. Parents will ruin these kids thinking they will get paid if they just focus on sports and not academics. Say goodbye to ECNL as well. What’s the point if scholarships will decrease significantly.
 
Back
Top