SCOTUS NCAA Ruling

[Herb Street]

[Wildcat Khan]

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!

It makes you wonder if SMU may finally recover from the Death Penalty they received in the 80's. Not a football school, but Gonzaga already appears to have a plan in place https://twitter.com/ZagMBB/status/1407458933573177349 and I'm sure many private schools will as well. I'm curious though how this will effect SFU as a Canadian NCAA school, but the two other remaining GNAC teams are both public schools for football in small towns under 20k. I don't think Ellensburg or Monmouth have the money to compete with the Vancouver metro area SFU has.

[Herb Street]

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.

[Eagle74]

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.

[Wildcat Khan]

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.

Another question it brings up, what about the schools that still haven't gotten sanctions in the Adidas scandal in basketball and the FBI investigation such as Kansas? Also, what about the current sanctions like for Arizona where they lost scholarships and won't be able to be in next year's tournament?

[Herb Street]

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.

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.

[Wildcat Khan]

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.

Don't forget Stanford and BYU which both have good programs in basketball and football. I mean Harbaugh made his name at Stanford and John Elway also went there.

[Eagle74]

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

[Eagle74]

Clemson's IPTAY Booster Club has already raised over $32 million just this year. They definitely have some $$$$$ to buy some good players, and without the NCAA guidelines, there's going to be a lot of bidding going on.

[Wildcat Khan]

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

Speaking of that and not trying to be political, Stanford has the Clintons as Chelsea went there.

[Herb Street]

But 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.

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.

[CALUPA69]

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.

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/

[boatcapt]

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.

More parity??? Maybe for the top 10-15 teams, but beyond that much LESS parity. We are now in an era when mega-donors will become defacto owner/general managers. How's a team going to be able to resist a mega donor saying, I've got this 5-star QB that I'm paying a million dollars to that I'm bring to you...all YOU have to do is start him from day one...OR...I've got $1M that I want to donate to your team...all you have to do is bench players A, B and C? Don't agree to do that? guess you don't want my million dollars!

[Brandon]

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/

Cutting sports at our level will be interesting to watch since so many are close to or at the minimum anyway.

[KleShreen]

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.