Mostly agree as it pertains to the "non-cash benefits" ruling.
But the opinions were so clearly towards the NCAA and NIL. They absolutely railed against the past NIL restrictions.
They made it pretty clear they wouldn't stand for future NIL restrictions.
But get what you're clarifying.
Right. I agree, especially when you read the tea leaves. It sounds like any rule that would come before them they would view with extreme skepticism. I imagine that is why the NCAA threw it hands up and is hoping for Congress to bail them out. They are tired of getting sued - who wouldn't be? But I see a lot in the media, and even here, that the NCAA is totally toothless because of Alston, and that simply is not true from a legal perspective.