Name and Likeness Law Signed by Kemp

[ncjacket79]

I’m not sure what it means but the 9-0 decision was based on earlier precedent which included the ruling that the NCAA still has the right to “preserve amateurism and the interests of higher education.”

So, to cross reference another thread where I voiced an unpopular opinion, if the NCAA wants to “preserve amateurism…etc” they should rule that each class of 25 at a school can have no more than 3 five star recruits and 5 four star recruits.

I know this will sound radical to most but it would keep the money influence from piling up more and more in a half dozen schools while reminding certain athletes that they are neither entitled nor possessing special privileges which can keep them from struggling like the majority of other students to get into the school of their choice.

If you’re going to cap teams at 85 and classes at 25 you might as well cap the financial assets schools will get from “amateurism.”

It’s not radical it’s ridiculous. Just to take your proposal seriously for an second, which ranking service would you use? Is it their ranking when they commit or when they sign? Would someone pay for every recruit to go to camps so people can rank them? What about transfers, do they count and how do you rank them? Get a grip man.

 

[forensicbuzz]

And now The Nine (otherwise known as the Supreme Court) has weighed in on the subject. See:

So long to the NCAA - Lawyers, Guns & Money

It takes a pretty special organization to lead even the current Supreme Court to rule unanimously that its most basic organizing principles are so outrageous that they have to be struck down: The Supreme Court handed a unanimous victory Monday to Division I college athletes in their fight...

www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com

I think Campos is right and Kavanaugh's concurrence will be the take of the whole court in future as other cases reach DC. This has been a long time coming and, while Congress could weigh in to save the NCAA's bacon, I'm pretty sure they won't.

People here have been talking a lot about transfers and "name and likeness" laws. Piffle. It's the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that will finally change college sports for good. With any kind of luck we'll get an NCAA that runs Div 3 programs and sports teams annexed by pro teams, like in Europe. Then we can take the extra money and use it to, you know, educate young people.

So, what happens if football and men's basketball (the only revenue sports in college athletics) are annexed by professional teams and all the TV money going to these athletic associations goes away? Can the universities go back to their old model of true amateurism or does this open the flood gates for all athletes? It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I still see schools cheating to gain an advantage. We'll see.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I’m not sure what it means but the 9-0 decision was based on earlier precedent which included the ruling that the NCAA still has the right to “preserve amateurism and the interests of higher education.”

So, to cross reference another thread where I voiced an unpopular opinion, if the NCAA wants to “preserve amateurism…etc” they should rule that each class of 25 at a school can have no more than 3 five star recruits and 5 four star recruits.

I know this will sound radical to most but it would keep the money influence from piling up more and more in a half dozen schools while reminding certain athletes that they are neither entitled nor possessing special privileges which can keep them from struggling like the majority of other students to get into the school of their choice.

If you’re going to cap teams at 85 and classes at 25 you might as well cap the financial assets schools will get from “amateurism.”

This is silly. All you're doing is validating these recruiting sites and giving them more credit than they deserve.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It’s not radical it’s ridiculous. Just to take your proposal seriously for an second, which ranking service would you use? Is it their ranking when they commit or when they sign? Would someone pay for every recruit to go to camps so people can rank them? What about transfers, do they count and how do you rank them? Get a grip man.

Those are all questions that can be answered. But not if you decide ahead of time that there’s no way to “redistribute the wealth.”

 

[forensicbuzz]

Those are all questions that can be answered. But not if you decide ahead of time that there’s no way to “redistribute the wealth.”

But what you're doing is telling a kid he can't go to a specific college and be on scholarship. Better to just make it all-pay or all-amateur and ban schools that are caught cheating. If you cheat or your boosters cheat for you and get caught, your program takes a year off and any players on your team are eligible for immediate unrestricted transfer. The problem is there are too many rules and too many lawyers. Make the rules simple and then enforce them.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

But what you're doing is telling a kid he can't go to a specific college and be on scholarship. Better to just make it all-pay or all-amateur and ban schools that are caught cheating. If you cheat or your boosters cheat for you and get caught, your program takes a year off and any players on your team are eligible for immediate unrestricted transfer. The problem is there are too many rules and too many lawyers. Make the rules simple and then enforce them.

I honestly am baffled by this argument. The vast majority of student athletes are told there is no room for them on a particular roster every year. Currently the 5 star and 4 star players create all kinds of bottle necks at top tier schools. By capping how many can enroll in a class you actually increase the number of players who no longer have to hear “there’s no room for you” at their favorite school.

My hunch as to why this idea bothers people is that they assume some kind of meritocracy. But I could argue all day that getting into college has rarely been about meritocracy and almost always been about privilege, money and colleges using certain students for their own gain.

If the Supreme Court precedent is followed then this is a perfect time for the NCAA to even the playing field so the rich don’t keep getting richer. If you don’t stop certain schools from stockpiling certain athletes ($) then you cannot preserve amateurism or promote higher education -role of the NCAA as stated by the court.

 

[Root4GT]

I honestly am baffled by this argument. The vast majority of student athletes are told there is no room for them on a particular roster every year. Currently the 5 star and 4 star players create all kinds of bottle necks at top tier schools. By capping how many can enroll in a class you actually increase the number of players who no longer have to hear “there’s no room for you” at their favorite school.

My hunch as to why this idea bothers people is that they assume some kind of meritocracy. But I could argue all day that getting into college has rarely been about meritocracy and almost always been about privilege, money and colleges using certain students for their own gain.

If the Supreme Court precedent is followed then this is a perfect time for the NCAA to even the playing field so the rich don’t keep getting richer. If you don’t stop certain schools from stockpiling certain athletes ($) then you cannot preserve amateurism or promote higher education -role of the NCAA as stated by the court.

Curious as to what your end state goal is. Do you want to cap coaching salaries as well? How about the support staffs for college athletes? Seems like you want a socialist form of college football. Why is such a system actually better for the players?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Curious as to what your end state goal is. Do you want to cap coaching salaries as well? How about the support staffs for college athletes? Seems like you want a socialist form of college football. Why is such a system actually better for the players?

End goal is to save college football from itself. History seems to show that this has to happen every few decades -whether outlawing the flying wedge, ending segregated sports, or eliminating the 35 scholarship rule the SEC had.

Coaches would actually have to earn their salaries if the talent pool was more evenly distributed. We would see greater emphasis on teaching slower developing players and some colleges might actually become more for students than just a two year training camp for the pros.

 

[ncjacket79]

End goal is to save college football from itself. History seems to show that this has to happen every few decades -whether outlawing the flying wedge, ending segregated sports, or eliminating the 35 scholarship rule the SEC had.

Coaches would actually have to earn their salaries if the talent pool was more evenly distributed. We would see greater emphasis on teaching slower developing players and some colleges might actually become more for students than just a two year training camp for the pros.

So just have a draft and tell kids where they have to go to school. Better yet drop college sports altogether and adopt the UK/Euro model where you’re either a pro by the time you’re 15-17 with no real prospects for an education or you go to college and play basically rec sports. Makes it easy then because no one would pay those athletes scholarships because it doesn’t matter.

 

[ncjacket79]

Those are all questions that can be answered. But not if you decide ahead of time that there’s no way to “redistribute the wealth.”

No probably can’t be answered because they are all opinions.

 

[Root4GT]

End goal is to save college football from itself. History seems to show that this has to happen every few decades -whether outlawing the flying wedge, ending segregated sports, or eliminating the 35 scholarship rule the SEC had.

Coaches would actually have to earn their salaries if the talent pool was more evenly distributed. We would see greater emphasis on teaching slower developing players and some colleges might actually become more for students than just a two year training camp for the pros.

So how does that benefit players? They are the core for all college athletics yet your proposals does nothing for them but limit their choices and opportunities. College football is a money making big business, nothing less. Scholarship players are not armatures as they are compensated for their services with tuition, room, board and tutoring. They earn those benefits for sure but pretending college football isn’t “Big Business” and players are true armatures is simply a false narrative.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I honestly am baffled by this argument. The vast majority of student athletes are told there is no room for them on a particular roster every year. Currently the 5 star and 4 star players create all kinds of bottle necks at top tier schools. By capping how many can enroll in a class you actually increase the number of players who no longer have to hear “there’s no room for you” at their favorite school.

My hunch as to why this idea bothers people is that they assume some kind of meritocracy. But I could argue all day that getting into college has rarely been about meritocracy and almost always been about privilege, money and colleges using certain students for their own gain.

If the Supreme Court precedent is followed then this is a perfect time for the NCAA to even the playing field so the rich don’t keep getting richer. If you don’t stop certain schools from stockpiling certain athletes ($) then you cannot preserve amateurism or promote higher education -role of the NCAA as stated by the court.

Who determines who is a 4* and who’s a 5*? You mean those services that we’ve heard time and time again anonymous coaches saying “I can turn a 2* kid into a 4* kid with a phone call.”? There’s no way to try to “equalize” the playing field.

 

[slugboy]

I shared more information on the Supreme Court NCAA v Alston decision at https://gtswarm.com/threads/general-ncaa-thread.23305/.

There was the majority (“official”) decision written by Gorsuch, and a concurring but harsher opinion by Kavanaugh, with the Gorsuch opinion being precedent. The majority of what I’ve seen is

• The NCAA is covered by anti-trust law, even though they argued that it doesn’t apply to them
• There’s little to no legal weight given to “amateurism” as a defense.
• This decision was on a narrow topic (internships, summer jobs, and other “academic” compensation), and the NCAA lost entirely on the narrow compensation topic. Kavanaugh’s concurrence implies “bring us more cases; unless Congress gives the NCAA special protection, we’re ready to make broader decisions”.
• No one believes Congress is going to give the NCAA anti-trust protection. I think you’d get majority bipartisan opposition to that.
• For what it’s worth, Kavanaugh’s concurrence says that the NCAA’s compensation model is unjustified and ludicrous, and that it’s ridiculous to have an industry where some people make a lot of money and the workers don’t really get paid. If lawyers see that and don’t think “I can take this NCAA case to the Supreme Court”, I don’t know what kind of hint they’re waiting for.
• This case in particular doesn’t change a lot directly, but it’s a clear signal for lawyers that it’s open season on the NCAA
• “Winter is coming” and the NCAA is publicly ignoring it

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Who determines who is a 4* and who’s a 5*? You mean those services that we’ve heard time and time again anonymous coaches saying “I can turn a 2* kid into a 4* kid with a phone call.”? There’s no way to try to “equalize” the playing field.

Sure there is. The history of college football has always been about trying to “equalize” going back to making it illegal to have non-student ringers on the team. It’s just time once again to tweak an unfair advantage for the sake of “amateurism and higher education” as the Supreme Court put it.

Recruiting services and coaches would no longer have as much incentive to game the star rankings because every school and every coach would get their fair shot at top athletes. The winning margin would no longer be built around stockpiling but around who could do a better job recruiting and developing 3 star athletes, the vast majority of athletes who often get short-changed.

When I first offered this concept I was just spit-balling for discussion sake but the more I have heard the counter arguments the more I’ve come around to thinking this might be a really good idea.

 

[ncjacket79]

Sure there is. The history of college football has always been about trying to “equalize” going back to making it illegal to have non-student ringers on the team. It’s just time once again to tweak an unfair advantage for the sake of “amateurism and higher education” as the Supreme Court put it.

Recruiting services and coaches would no longer have as much incentive to game the star rankings because every school and every coach would get their fair shot at top athletes. The winning margin would no longer be built around stockpiling but around who could do a better job recruiting and developing 3 star athletes, the vast majority of athletes who often get short-changed.

When I first offered this concept I was just spit-balling for discussion sake but the more I have heard the counter arguments the more I’ve come around to thinking this might be a really good idea.

It’s a very bad and very unworkable solution.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It’s a very bad and very unworkable solution.

I think it’s a very good and easily applied solution.

 

[Techfan02]

Just had a thought, what if you make the recruits pay for the school but give them compensation?

 

[ncjacket79]

I think it’s a very good and easily applied solution.

Because you evidently have no clue about how players are evaluated.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Because you evidently have no clue about how players are evaluated.

Well forgive me for being so unenlightened.

 

[takethepoints]

So, what happens if football and men's basketball (the only revenue sports in college athletics) are annexed by professional teams and all the TV money going to these athletic associations goes away? Can the universities go back to their old model of true amateurism or does this open the flood gates for all athletes? It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I still see schools cheating to gain an advantage. We'll see.

I went to a Div 3 school and played football there. On our starting 22 when I was a frosh 16 had been recruited by either ACC or SEC schools and found out that they are just not big or fast enough to ever start. (Btw, I was most definitely not one of the 16.) All of these guys - and a good number of others - had academic scholarships. Not full boats, but adequate. And, to be fair, there weren't any knuckle draggers on that team; several of the former ACC and SEC types were dean's list material.

I understand - on very limited evidence - that this is how the main Div 3 powers manage things to this day. Sooooo … is this cheating? Well, some of the transfer players wouldn't have gotten in without football and some had a difficult time with their studies. And will this be how things turn out? I'd say the chances are pretty good that this will be what happens. People like sports and want to see their schools compete. What will probably disappear is the enormous salaries paid to coaches and ADs. But, like you say, we'll see. This is a long way from being over.