June 21, 20215 yr This is the SCOTUS upholding a 2020 ruling from the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, whose ruling the NCAA was appealing. The 2020 ruling from the 9th Cir. was also an appeal by NCAA of a 2018 ruling by Judge Claudia Wikenin US District Court that also ruled in favor of former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston. The 9 justices of the SCOTUS all voted confirming the ruling from the 9th Cir. which stated that the NCAA's policies regarding limitations on how much schools can compensate athletes for academic-related costs are in direct violation of Section I of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act is the original US law that was created to promote free competition in business and commerce and to prevent monopolies. The NCAA had a $5000 cap on the education-related benefits a college was able to provide to student-athletes, previous to the ruling. Those education-related benefits discussed in the ruling include things like computers, paid-internships, tutoring, study abroad programs, and musical instruments. Tuition, room and board are not part of the discussion, as those were already permitted by the NCAA. To be clear, this SCOTUS ruling does not permit payment to college athletes.
June 21, 20215 yr Also, everyone needs to remember that BGP's moratorium on the discussion of politics still applies here. We do permit the discussion of rule of law, as needed, and as upheld in this SCOTUS decision. Any mention, discussion, and media regarding politics or political figures is expressly prohibited on BluegrassPreps. This includes, but is not limited to the mention or names of any elected or publicly appointed officials, both domestic and foreign, by name, title, or by the offices held (e.g. - president, governor, chancellor, mayor, minister, senator, congressman, commissioner, attorney general, county clerk, magistrate, Beshear, Clinton, Lincoln, Merkel, Obama, Putin, Reagan, Roosevelt, Trudeau, Trump, etc). Any direct references or inferences to political terminology and activities, (e.g. - government, Democrat, Republican, GOP, conservative, liberal, campaign, lobby, legislature, filibuster, caucus, etc) and anything else deemed political in nature by the BGP staff is also prohibited from the site. Likewise, this also includes 3rd party links to articles that are political in name or in nature. Additionally, the use of names/nicknames deemed by the BGP staff as references to political figures (e.g. - Andy, Donald, Tricky Dick, Slick Willy) will not be permitted on BluegrassPreps. Keeping in mind BGP's core purpose as a sports-discussion community, discussion of the the managing bodies specifically serving over high school, college, amateur, and professional sports leagues (KHSAA, NCAA, IOC, MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL et al), along with the officers, officials and the titles held by the individuals within those organizations is permitted on BGP. Similarly, high school and college/university administrators and officials, when discussed in a strictly non-political manner, are all permissible on BGP.
June 21, 20215 yr I am worried about the future of college athletics after this decision. Some D1 colleges already "pay" their athletes and I fear all this decision will do is make the rich richer in college athletics.
June 21, 20215 yr 32 minutes ago, theguru said: I am worried about the future of college athletics after this decision. Some D1 colleges already "pay" their athletes and I fear all this decision will do is make the rich richer in college athletics. What I foresee as I think about it now is the end of the amateurism façade at the high level NCAA programs. Those top programs will eventually become quasi professional programs with pay structures agreed upon by the school members, similar to salary caps we have in professional sports. I am not so sure that is a bad thing.
June 21, 20215 yr 6 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said: What I foresee as I think about it now is the end of the amateurism façade at the high level NCAA programs. Those top programs will eventually become quasi professional programs with pay structures agreed upon by the school members, similar to salary caps we have in professional sports. I am not so sure that is a bad thing. I think I totally agree with you. Then eventually you will have a top, quasi professional league and the rest of the colleges can play real college football with a separate playoff system.
June 21, 20215 yr Author My biggest question is what happens with non-revenue and women's sports? This decision is no doubt great for athletes but I think there's a lot of unanswered questions that need to be clarified before this goes forward. I'm all for an athlete being able to profit off their NIL and universities being allowed to provide free educational resources (laptops, etc) but I don't think universities should be required to pay them as well... Especially when you factor in the cost of everything included in a D1 football/basketball scholarship. (Tuition, room and board, health care, gear, travel, and in most cases, additional monthly stipend)
June 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, Walter said: My biggest question is what happens with non-revenue and women's sports? This decision is no doubt great for athletes but I think there's a lot of unanswered questions that need to be clarified before this goes forward. I'm all for an athlete being able to profit off their NIL and universities being allowed to provide free educational resources (laptops, etc) but I don't think universities should be required to pay them as well... Especially when you factor in the cost of everything included in a D1 football/basketball scholarship. (Tuition, room and board, health care, gear, travel, and in most cases, additional monthly stipend) It is going to be a fight for sure and I assume some pass through costs to the rest of the student body/people.
June 21, 20215 yr Author It should be noted that as of RIGHT NOW, this ruling is just for education related expenses and not full on "pay for play." What exactly is considered an education related expense? Laptops, obviously. Could a car be considered an education related expense since transportation may be needed to get to and from class?
June 21, 20215 yr 12 minutes ago, Walter said: It should be noted that as of RIGHT NOW, this ruling is just for education related expenses and not full on "pay for play." What exactly is considered an education related expense? Laptops, obviously. Could a car be considered an education related expense since transportation may be needed to get to and from class? Whatever it is I imagine there will be enough loopholes or gray areas to pay who you need to pay.
June 21, 20215 yr 3 hours ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said: This is the SCOTUS upholding a 2020 ruling from the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, whose ruling the NCAA was appealing. The 2020 ruling from the 9th Cir. was also an appeal by the NCAA of a 2018 ruling by Judge Claudia Wikenin US District Court that also ruled in favor of former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston. The 9 justices of the SCOTUS all voted confirming the ruling from the 9th Cir. which stated that the NCAA's policies regarding limitations on how much schools can compensate athletes for academic-related costs are in direct violation of Section I of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act is the original US law that was created to promote free competition in business and commerce and to prevent monopolies. The NCAA had a $5000 cap on the education-related benefits a college was able to provide to student-athletes, previous to the ruling. Those education-related benefits discussed in the ruling include things like computers, paid-internships, tutoring, study abroad programs, and musical instruments. Tuition, room and board are not part of the discussion, as those were already permitted by the NCAA. To be clear, this SCOTUS ruling does not permit payment to college athletes. Slight correction here. Both the NCAA and the Alston legal team were appealing the decisions in both cases. The NCAA was seeking to reverse the decision, and the Alson team was presumably pursuing an outcome with more of a true "pay for play" scenario.
June 21, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, Walter said: It should be noted that as of RIGHT NOW, this ruling is just for education related expenses and not full on "pay for play." What exactly is considered an education related expense? Laptops, obviously. Could a car be considered an education related expense since transportation may be needed to get to and from class? This was the crux of the NCAA's appeal. For example, paid internships and study abroad programs ARE considered education-related expenses, and are permissible for NCAA student athletes under the decision. The NCAA's attorney argued that you could offer to give a player a post-athletic eligibility paid internship worth thousands of dollars, or lavish trips abroad as part of "study abroad programs" and all of it would be fair game under the SCOTUS ruling.
June 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said: This was the crux of the NCAA's appeal. For example, paid internships and study abroad programs ARE considered education-related expenses, and are permissible for NCAA student athletes under the decision. The NCAA's attorney argued that you could offer to give a player a post-athletic eligibility paid internship worth thousands of dollars, or lavish trips abroad as part of "study abroad programs" and all of it would be fair game under the SCOTUS ruling. Right, it is open season if you have a specific athlete(s) you want to pay.
June 21, 20215 yr My favorite 2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said: What I foresee as I think about it now is the end of the amateurism façade at the high level NCAA programs. Those top programs will eventually become quasi professional programs with pay structures agreed upon by the school members, similar to salary caps we have in professional sports. I am not so sure that is a bad thing. One of my favorite lines from the official court opinion entered by Justice Gorsuch, in which he referred to the earlier findings of the US District Court on the 2018 iteration of this case: "...the NCAA’s conception of amateurism has changed steadily over the years. The [US District] court noted that the NCAA “nowhere defines the nature of the amateurism they claim consumers insist upon. And, given all this, the [US District] court struggled to ascertain for itself “any coherent definition” of the term, noting the testimony of a former SEC commissioner that he’s “‘never been clear on what is really meant by amateurism.’”
June 21, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said: My favorite One of my favorite lines from the official court opinion entered by Justice Gorsuch, in which he referred to the earlier findings of the US District Court on the 2018 iteration of this case: "...the NCAA’s conception of amateurism has changed steadily over the years. The [US District] court noted that the NCAA “nowhere defines the nature of the amateurism they claim consumers insist upon. And, given all this, the [US District] court struggled to ascertain for itself “any coherent definition” of the term, noting the testimony of a former SEC commissioner that he’s “‘never been clear on what is really meant by amateurism.’” In my opinion that was a nice way to say high level college athletics are corrupt and this decision will make it worse.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.