Supreme Court rules on NIL

#1

volsknx

The only people who dislike winners are losers!
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
744
Likes
1,015
#1
Media reaction to the Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA

Question that I have and have yet to see anyone propose it is, what about all the players who came before the current ones who will receive the benefit of NIL? Obviously, Peyton Manning does not need the money but what about other athletes from past years and decades?

Why has no-one mentioned them?
 
#2
#2
#3
#3
Colleges & NCAA get what they deserve. They have failed miserably to communicate and verify the true monetary value of an full ride athletic scholarship. It’s probably close to $50,000-$100,000 per year all things included for a 20+ hour a week job. The NCAA got bogged down with paying $150 a week stipend while coaches ripped off mega millions and here’s where we’re at.
 
#5
#5
This really was not an NIL ruling. It was very limited and didn't include Name, Image, Likeness.
 
#6
#6
This really was not an NIL ruling. It was very limited and didn't include Name, Image, Likeness.

NIL has been a done deal for a long time, the States and eventually DOJ took care of that.

Let's fast forward a bit.... the NCAA will not be regulating compensation in basically any form in the future.

My only question at this point is, which school openly pays player directly first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#7
#7
NIL has been a done deal for a long time, the States and eventually DOJ took care of that.

Let's fast forward a bit.... the NCAA will not be regulating compensation in basically any form in the future.

My only question at this point is, which school openly pays player directly first?

Agreed. This ruling had nothing to do with NIL
 
#8
#8
Agreed. This ruling had nothing to do with NIL

I hate to link espn, but...
High court rules against NCAA on compensation

They're fix'n to eat.

The States need to get involved and tell the member schools to cut the crap as they won't be backstopped by the State.

Steve Berman, who was co-counsel in the Alson case, also is currently leading a lawsuit that challenges any limits the NCAA is putting on future name, image and likeness opportunities for college athletes. Berman told ESPN on Monday that his firm is considering amending its complaint to be more aggressive, asking the court to remove any restrictions on the type of compensation schools can provide to their athletes.

"In light of Justice Kavanaugh's comments, we're rethinking whether we should once again challenge pay for play," Berman said. "Kavanaugh is suggesting you should go after everything."
 
#9
#9
NIL has been a done deal for a long time, the States and eventually DOJ took care of that.

Let's fast forward a bit.... the NCAA will not be regulating compensation in basically any form in the future.

My only question at this point is, which school openly pays player directly first?

Bama
 
#10
#10

I think that might tricky with Alabama's NIL Law, which is probably unconstitutional, imo.

The Gumps would have to give money not for their likeness or image, but for playing or employment... just to don't pay for their likeness or image and pay them to play should be fine under the law. See legislation. What these States are creating are just as bad as the NCAA. :) The law appears to me to only govern image/likeness... not general or employment compensation, although who knows what the State Attorney General would do. The law is stupid, although it was effective in part.

My reading is... the Gumps could just make them employees (not compensation for their image) and be in the clear.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableinstruments/2021RS/bills/HB404.htm
 
#11
#11
I think that might tricky with Alabama's NIL Law, which is probably unconstitutional, imo.

The Gumps would have to give money not for their likeness or image, but for playing or employee... just to don't pay for their likeness or image and pay them play should be fine under the law. See legislation. What these States are creating are just as bad as the NCAA. :) The law appears to me to only govern image/likeness... not compensation, although who knows what the State Attorney General would do. The law is stupid.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableinstruments/2021RS/bills/HB404.htm

They pay their players now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#13
#13
I hate to link espn, but...
High court rules against NCAA on compensation

They're fix'n to eat.

The States need to get involved and tell the member schools to cut the crap as they won't be backstopped by the State.

I agree that this decision was a shot across the bow to pay players. It just didn't actually rule on that.

The problem with paying players is Title IX. How are you going to pay the Vols basketball players and not the Lady Vols?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#14
#14
Seems like many of us are forgetting college football brings in the billions with a b amount of dollars annually. The SCOTUS ruled as they did IMO because the bulk of the people generating that amount of money as in players were getting nowhere close to it in compensation or benefits. Try as some here may to inflate a scholarshi(s)p to come out to the billions of dollars in revenues does not work. Especially when the monies are divvied out to administrators and pet projects as the institutions see fit to disburse those funds. What you will see is a reckoning of sorts IMO. Some will do the right thing, cut the payments to their administrators and staffs, and distribute it to the players. Some will try to increase prices. Some will do away with programs that don't pay for themselves. What will happen are the institutions that do the best job of managing their funds will have the $s on hand to pay for better players and thrive. The ones that don't manage money or their total overall business well will suffer. You're no longer going to see much sympathy at all for people no matter whether they're in the AD or university staff who make millions not performing well. I suspect we'll see a lot in the way of coaching salaries eventually deflating from stratospheric levels as well.
 
#15
#15
Seems like many of us are forgetting college football brings in the billions with a b amount of dollars annually. The SCOTUS ruled as they did IMO because the bulk of the people generating that amount of money as in players were getting nowhere close to it in compensation or benefits. Try as some here may to inflate a scholarshi(s)p to come out to the billions of dollars in revenues does not work. Especially when the monies are divvied out to administrators and pet projects as the institutions see fit to disburse those funds. What you will see is a reckoning of sorts IMO. Some will do the right thing, cut the payments to their administrators and staffs, and distribute it to the players. Some will try to increase prices. Some will do away with programs that don't pay for themselves. What will happen are the institutions that do the best job of managing their funds will have the $s on hand to pay for better players and thrive. The ones that don't manage money or their total overall business well will suffer. You're no longer going to see much sympathy at all for people no matter whether they're in the AD or university staff who make millions not performing well. I suspect we'll see a lot in the way of coaching salaries eventually deflating from stratospheric levels as well.
If we keep wasting money on ineffective coaches and AD’s we are in fo a lot of trouble!
 
#16
#16
Welp, the NCAA gave in on NIL yesterday, and today college athletes are signing with sponsors left and right. Bo friggin Nix of AU is now "sponsored by Milo's Sweet Tea," ferchissakes LOL. Will the announcers be contractually obligated to say, "And now Bo-Nix-Sponsored-by-Milo's drops back to pass...." every time? :p;)
 
#17
#17
As this goes along I find myself less and less interested in college football and basketball. Sad to say that as I’ve been a fan for over 50 years. I know they’ve been getting paid for years under the table. Not that naive. Now it’s going to be highest bidder, winner take all and it’s just sad to me. No different than the NFL and NBA as far as I can tell.
 
#18
#18
#19
#19
As this goes along I find myself less and less interested in college football and basketball. Sad to say that as I’ve been a fan for over 50 years. I know they’ve been getting paid for years under the table. Not that naive. Now it’s going to be highest bidder, winner take all and it’s just sad to me. No different than the NFL and NBA as far as I can tell.

So you’ve been okay with the highest bidder winning as long as the stakes were undisclosed and under the table?
 
#20
#20
Seems like many of us are forgetting college football brings in the billions with a b amount of dollars annually. The SCOTUS ruled as they did IMO because the bulk of the people generating that amount of money as in players were getting nowhere close to it in compensation or benefits. Try as some here may to inflate a scholarshi(s)p to come out to the billions of dollars in revenues does not work. Especially when the monies are divvied out to administrators and pet projects as the institutions see fit to disburse those funds. What you will see is a reckoning of sorts IMO. Some will do the right thing, cut the payments to their administrators and staffs, and distribute it to the players. Some will try to increase prices. Some will do away with programs that don't pay for themselves. What will happen are the institutions that do the best job of managing their funds will have the $s on hand to pay for better players and thrive. The ones that don't manage money or their total overall business well will suffer. You're no longer going to see much sympathy at all for people no matter whether they're in the AD or university staff who make millions not performing well. I suspect we'll see a lot in the way of coaching salaries eventually deflating from stratospheric levels as well.

The gap between the annual cost of an athletic scholarship and the annual revenue generated by SEC schools has grown exponentially.

The SEC’s next TV deal with ESPN will pay around $300M annually for each SEC school…and that includes Vanderbilt.

The adoption of these new NIL rules isn’t a compromise as much as it’s an admission that conferences and TV networks have been printing money off the backs of these kids for years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#21
#21
So you’ve been okay with the highest bidder winning as long as the stakes were undisclosed and under the table?
Nope, that’s precisely the reason why I started getting less interested a few years ago. (And maybe that’s because UT even screwed that up.) It’s just been growing and this is the icing. It’s been obvious that 90% of these players could care less about the school they sign with. Now it’s no different than the NFL as far as I’m concerned and I haven’t watched a full NFL game since Peyton retired. College sports is headed in that direction for me. You watch the pros if you like. I don’t have any desire to do it.
 
#22
#22
Nope, that’s precisely the reason why I started getting less interested a few years ago. (And maybe that’s because UT even screwed that up.) It’s just been growing and this is the icing. It’s been obvious that 90% of these players could care less about the school they sign with. Now it’s no different than the NFL as far as I’m concerned and I haven’t watched a full NFL game since Peyton retired. College sports is headed in that direction for me. You watch the pros if you like. I don’t have any desire to do it.

90%? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
 

VN Store



Back
Top