Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SCOTUS NCAA Ruling
Collapse
Support The Site!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Herb Street View Post
Bad guess. Doesn't really matter what the NCAA or Power 5 think of them. The Supreme Court neutered the NCAA yesterday. If D2 and D3 schools want to pay players and have the $$ to do so, they will. And don't think for a minute that they aren't going to get paid at these levels - they will. There are PLENTY of D2 and D3 schools that have LOTS of $$$, especially the private schools, that will have no problem paying athletes if they so choose. Not an issue.
The rich private schools are the big winners here, regardless of division. Think SMU, TCU, Notre Dame, USC, Rice, even Trinity of Texas. These private schools have the dough to spend everyone into oblivion if they so choose by paying players.
It's a whole new ball game boys!
Comment
-
In terms of the SC ruling, it will take two to three years before you see any significant impact on D2 and D3 programs. As for SMU, the irony is, their recruiting strategy would have fit very nicely under the free-for-all we are beginning to enter. If I am the NCAA, I don't see how I can interpret the SC's ruling as anything but "the NCAA cannot restrain compensation".
So I think the NCAA's current format is basically dead. It will have to remake itself if it wants to survive. What really needs to happen is that college athletes need to unionize and negotiate a preliminary package with the schools. The package might include the usual tuition & fees, plus other perks. And it will have to be laddered in such a way that high-value athletes are paid more (a lot more) for their services. This could actually serve to keep athletes in college longer.
Reality is, the SC ruling doesn't change the fact that most college athletes will not be good enough to play pro ball. Nothing in that regard has changed. Except for the fact that college is now quasi-pro, ranging from mostly pro (P5) to more semi-pro (D2 and D3). Of course, this has all been the case for a long time; Justice Kavanaugh merely flipped the light switch on to the roaches.
Comment
-
Well this move now gives the ultra rich alumni the ability to basically buy the best athletes / player for their preferred college football programs. Oregon Ducks will end up being able to offer hundreds of thousands of cash (maybe more) along with homes, cars, stock, for the best athletes for each position, and this will include transfers from other schools.
Texas, Maryland, Stanford, Florida, and a couple of Ivy League will also be able to buy a lot of the better players.
Let the buying begin, college football as we have all enjoyed over the years has just been derailed, and is now been turned over to the top 1 percenters. Yet another sad situation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herb Street View PostIn terms of the SC ruling, it will take two to three years before you see any significant impact on D2 and D3 programs. As for SMU, the irony is, their recruiting strategy would have fit very nicely under the free-for-all we are beginning to enter. If I am the NCAA, I don't see how I can interpret the SC's ruling as anything but "the NCAA cannot restrain compensation".
So I think the NCAA's current format is basically dead. It will have to remake itself if it wants to survive. What really needs to happen is that college athletes need to unionize and negotiate a preliminary package with the schools. The package might include the usual tuition & fees, plus other perks. And it will have to be laddered in such a way that high-value athletes are paid more (a lot more) for their services. This could actually serve to keep athletes in college longer.
Reality is, the SC ruling doesn't change the fact that most college athletes will not be good enough to play pro ball. Nothing in that regard has changed. Except for the fact that college is now quasi-pro, ranging from mostly pro (P5) to more semi-pro (D2 and D3). Of course, this has all been the case for a long time; Justice Kavanaugh merely flipped the light switch on to the roaches.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Eagle74 View PostWell this move now gives the ultra rich alumni the ability to basically buy the best athletes / player for their preferred college football programs. Oregon Ducks will end up being able to offer hundreds of thousands of cash (maybe more) along with homes, cars, stock, for the best athletes for each position, and this will include transfers from other schools.
Texas, Maryland, Stanford, Florida, and a couple of Ivy League will also be able to buy a lot of the better players.
Let the buying begin, college football as we have all enjoyed over the years has just been derailed, and is now been turned over to the top 1 percenters. Yet another sad situation.
The big winners are the private schools. They are unencumbered regarding what funds are used to pay players. Notre Dame, Wake, USC, Vanderbilt, Miami, Northwestern - their ship just came in. The state universities will have much more difficulty with the accounting, as in most states you won't be able to allocate public money to pay players.
From a competitive standpoint, this new model will create more parity. In the last 6-7 years, Clemson, Alabama, and Oklahoma have been stockpiling all of the talent, because top talent wants to be in those marque TV playoff games. So the rich have gotten richer. Totally different situation in this new environment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herb Street View Post
The capitalism knife cuts both ways.
The big winners are the private schools. They are unencumbered regarding what funds are used to pay players. Notre Dame, Wake, USC, Vanderbilt, Miami, Northwestern - their ship just came in. The state universities will have much more difficulty with the accounting, as in most states you won't be able to allocate public money to pay players.
From a competitive standpoint, this new model will create more parity. In the last 6-7 years, Clemson, Alabama, and Oklahoma have been stockpiling all of the talent, because top talent wants to be in those marque TV playoff games. So the rich have gotten richer. Totally different situation in this new environment.
Comment
-
Big Public School have mega boosters who can pick and choose how the booster clubs can spend their millions. UNC's Rams Booster Club funneled millions and millions into paying Coach Roy William's annual salary,. Same goes for Clemson, Georgia, etc etc.
Buying players to enrich your team. Hummmmmm
Comment
-
Originally posted by Eagle74 View PostBig Public School have mega boosters who can pick and choose how the booster clubs can spend their millions. UNC's Rams Booster Club funneled millions and millions into paying Coach Roy William's annual salary,. Same goes for Clemson, Georgia, etc etc.
Buying players to enrich your team. Hummmmmm
Comment
-
Originally posted by CALUPA69 View PostBut if the top track athlete believes he should be paid as much as the QB there will at the very least be issues eventually moving toward litigation. And don't even think of paying the top WBB player less than the top MBB player. The only winners here are the lawyers and agents. I foresee a whole field of law.....and a need to add judges.
"Free market" is going to cut both ways. While there may be schools lined up to give the high school basketball stud a scholarship, the track athlete is going to have a tough time even getting his books paid for, since he is in a non-revenue sport.
We are quickly going to move into a split model for many schools: The revenue sport athletes get paid to play; the non-revenue sport athletes are going to pay to play. Or a D1/D3 hybrid if you will.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herb Street View Post
Well, then you're right back at wage control, and the SC clearly said that wage control violates the Sherman Act. Like other athletes, the top track athlete will have to shop around for the best bid.
"Free market" is going to cut both ways. While there may be schools lined up to give the high school basketball stud a scholarship, the track athlete is going to have a tough time even getting his books paid for, since he is in a non-revenue sport.
We are quickly going to move into a split model for many schools: The revenue sport athletes get paid to play; the non-revenue sport athletes are going to pay to play. Or a D1/D3 hybrid if you will.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/...d-19-pandemic/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herb Street View Post
The capitalism knife cuts both ways.
The big winners are the private schools. They are unencumbered regarding what funds are used to pay players. Notre Dame, Wake, USC, Vanderbilt, Miami, Northwestern - their ship just came in. The state universities will have much more difficulty with the accounting, as in most states you won't be able to allocate public money to pay players.
From a competitive standpoint, this new model will create more parity. In the last 6-7 years, Clemson, Alabama, and Oklahoma have been stockpiling all of the talent, because top talent wants to be in those marque TV playoff games. So the rich have gotten richer. Totally different situation in this new environment.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post
Actually I expect the trend of sports elimination to continue at all levels. This will be especially difficult for borderline schools both public and private who will have to give up another incentive for potential student interest. Sad but true.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/...d-19-pandemic/
Comment
-
I think ultimately this is going to harm D2. You're going to have a *LOT* less players transferring down from D1 schools as long as they are getting some money for some local marketing deal. Instead of grabbing those guys buried on the depth chart to come start for you, those guys are probably going to stay. Unless there's going to be any D2 schools where there's big money available for advertising/marketing campaigns, which I doubt.2021 D2Football Fantasy Champion
Comment
Ad3
Collapse
Comment