NCAA v. Alston in the Supreme Court

[orientalnc]

The oral arguments today faced questions from all nine justices that had the NCAA on the defense. The NCAA amateur model could be on the ropes and struggling to keep its gloves up.

Amid March Madness, antitrust dispute over college athlete compensation comes to the court - SCOTUSblog

This weekend the National Collegiate Athletic Association will host its storied “Final Four” to determine the champions of the men’s and women’s Division I basketball tournaments. But first the NCAA will be in a different high court on Wednesday: the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral argument

www.scotusblog.com

Here is an interesting thread re todays arguments:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1377269135550377993

 

[JacketRacket]

 

[dtm1997]

 

[LibertyTurns]

Very surprised by some of the Justice’s questions. They’re breaking from their normal/expected positions. Free marketeers may prevail & not in a 5-4 decision, but maybe 9-0.

 

[orientalnc]

Very surprised by some of the Justice’s questions. They’re breaking from their normal/expected positions. Free marketeers may prevail & not in a 5-4 decision, but maybe 9-0.

I agree. It looks like the NCAA is on the losing side. I have some concerns about what survives this decision and how much it impacts GT teams.

 

[randerto]

I agree. It looks like the NCAA is on the losing side. I have some concerns about what survives this decision and how much it impacts GT teams.

Hard to predict the impacts - on one hand it could be a way for players like Alvarado (basketball example) to decide to stick around for one last year. On the other hand, it could tilt the overall balance of power even more toward the big budget athletic programs/schools. All depends on the details of what is approved - details, details....

 

[orientalnc]

Hard to predict the impacts - on one hand it could be a way for players like Alvarado (basketball example) to decide to stick around for one last year. On the other hand, it could tilt the overall balance of power even more toward the big budget athletic programs/schools. All depends on the details of what is approved - details, details....

I agree. It's very scary and I am concerned about what happens next. But the status quo is not fair.

 

[YlJacket]

I agree. It's very scary and I am concerned about what happens next. But the status quo is not fair.

This looks to me like potentially destroying a system for the perceived fairness to maybe 25 or so players per year. While I wish the NCAA, conferences and schools hadn't tried to monetize college sports for all they are worth, I still think it is a pretty fair deal for 99% of the players. I am very fearful the courts will find some rational to make any and all financial compensation legal pretty much destroying competitive balance even more than it is already.

Now I continue to believe much of this is the fault of the NCAA and Emmert in particular by not being able to put together a reasonable PR campaign in the face of this social media blitz. And as I said all the adults without a doubt made a money grab so they are going to deserve what I expect is coming to them.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I agree. It looks like the NCAA is on the losing side. I have some concerns about what survives this decision and how much it impacts GT teams.

GT will be at a distinct disadvantage as the free market prevails here which is what should happen. Right now there’s a smaller number of players being courted under the table thru intermediaries (bag men) & GT cannot compete. Fast forward when the NCAA loses here & players go thru contract negotiations ala NFL free agency prior to signing as freshmen or sophs, juniors, seniors, etc. Profiting off image likeness, etc is just the tip of the iceberg and players will be staring at life altering choices at 17 whether to pick college “a” where they can make $150k/yr vs college “b” with a better education where they may only make $50k. Going to be a huge bidding war for talent, we will lose badly, and “processing” will be on display for all to see. You’re going to see agents, guaranteed vs non-guaranteed money, signing bonuses, etc all becoming commonplace. Going to be a mess for sure. There’s just no legal basis for what the NCAA is doing.

 

[orientalnc]

GT will be at a distinct disadvantage as the free market prevails here which is what should happen. Right now there’s a smaller number of players being courted under the table thru intermediaries (bag men) & GT cannot compete. Fast forward when the NCAA loses here & players go thru contract negotiations ala NFL free agency prior to signing as freshmen or sophs, juniors, seniors, etc. Profiting off image likeness, etc is just the tip of the iceberg and players will be staring at life altering choices at 17 whether to pick college “a” where they can make $150k/yr vs college “b” with a better education where they may only make $50k. Going to be a huge bidding war for talent, we will lose badly, and “processing” will be on display for all to see. You’re going to see agents, guaranteed vs non-guaranteed money, signing bonuses, etc all becoming commonplace. Going to be a mess for sure. There’s just no legal basis for what the NCAA is doing.

So, if I am reading you correctly, the NCAA is protecting weak schools like Ga Tech.

 

[green&gold]

Kids deserved to be paid. Plain and simple.

 

[glandon1960]

The challenge for NCAA is how do you strike a balance between allowing players to profit off their NIL - while maintaining competitive balance.
I see no way Supreme Court does not rule against the NCAA on this, but hopefully they consider the competitive advantage arguments and define some bounds.

For example - Can NCAA put a limit on what a player can make per year? Say $100K in Basketball.
Granted some schools may have trouble coming up with ways to afford even $100K/player - but - I am not worried UNC/Kentucky/Kansas/Duke in Basketball - Alabama/Ohio State/etc in football have supporters running businesses where players could make a lot more (and become a bidding war for top talent) if there are no limits.

I don't mind the players being able to make some money - but - we do need limits to preserve competitive advantage.
If they do, GT will be fine ... If they don't you will see more of a have and have not in major conferences (let alone very few teams below that level that can compete nationally with any consistency). I am not worried GT can't drum up interest in community to generate $$ for some players (think someone would want to have commercial/ads with some of our basketball players in it?).

I also agree with the post that if our current seniors can make $$$ while at GT next season, it will influence them to come back for one more run.

 

[Gtbowhunter90]

Why does this seem like it's going to benefit UGA massively and us negatively?

 

[Pointer]

Who knows really how this will all shape out until it happens?

My thought on what we may possibly see is things will stay relatively the same. Schools like GT will need to implement get old stay old model/schemes (hybrid defense) people don't often see in order to be competitive enough so as to get more national attention. This may then lead to an uptick in sidewalk fans, and hence an increased fan base as long as the success can be sustained. I'm not sure this is much different from the norm if what we hear about bagmen is true (which I believe it is).

Putting a limit on what players can earn is an interesting idea. On one hand it could help gt if correctly implemented and only a few players actually make money on the team.
On the flip side, if it turns out small schools like GT only have enough fans so that X% on the players on a team can hit the max payout or get close, while factory schools can hit Y%, and the difference between X% and Y% are massive, then I'm not sure how well this works out for GT. By putting a cap, you are essentially funneling money from the hyperathletes on a factory team to some of the other highly touted players with not as high name recognition. This would greatly favor athlete for the reasons mentioned above.
This will be much tougher on sports with larger number of athletes, probably.

What really should have been done a long time ago is if a player is really good enough, they should be allowed the opportunity to get drafted, if they don't get drafted, they should be allowed to try to go back to school, but doesn't have to be the original school. Essentially being recruited as a new recruit in case their old school moved on and doesn't have room.

 

[LibertyTurns]

So, if I am reading you correctly, the NCAA is protecting weak schools like Ga Tech.

Like everything else it’s orders of magnitude, but right now they protect GT in the sense that open market negotiations for talent/ compensation is unnaturally suppressed but they offset it by punishing GT by disadvantaging schools with higher academic & personal conduct standards making it tougher to compete.

For example if they were really interested in academics they would reward schools recruiting kids with higher SAT/ACT schools, STEM majors, etc and maybe have a non-sports averaging starting salary component & punish schools whose kids cannot read/write, have no chance of ever graduating even from the easiest majors, etc.

 

[Pointer]

....

For example if they were really interested in academics they would reward schools recruiting kids with higher SAT/ACT schools, STEM majors, etc and maybe have a non-sports averaging starting salary component & punish schools whose kids cannot read/write, have no chance of ever graduating even from the easiest majors, etc.

This would have been great. Sadly their only attempt was the bs APR system which the factories quickly took advantage of.

Currently, short of an individual player getting academic scholarships outside of athletic ones, it's not happening and that's a shame.

 

[orientalnc]

Like everything else it’s orders of magnitude, but right now they protect GT in the sense that open market negotiations for talent/ compensation is unnaturally suppressed but they offset it by punishing GT by disadvantaging schools with higher academic & personal conduct standards making it tougher to compete.

For example if they were really interested in academics they would reward schools recruiting kids with higher SAT/ACT schools, STEM majors, etc and maybe have a non-sports averaging starting salary component & punish schools whose kids cannot read/write, have no chance of ever graduating even from the easiest majors, etc.

I do not think the SCOTUS cares about academics when deciding this case. It's all about whether the NCAA can set a limit on what a SA can be paid by any/all NCAA member teams. I do not think the amount is the issue. Whether it's $1 or $1million, a limit is a limit and that is the current situation.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Kids deserved to be paid. Plain and simple.

Then let them go pro. That’s the whole definition of “professional”, you get paid for what you do. Amateurs don’t get paid.

Paying the players will kill college athletics. It is totally counter to the whole idea of collegiate sports.

I understand the issues, so don’t blare at me. Universities are making huge $ off sports, so it’s not equitable. But, just because it’s broken doesn’t mean you blow the whole thing up and make these university programs professional organizations.

 

[orientalnc]

Then let them go pro. That’s the whole definition of “professional”, you get paid for what you do. Amateurs don’t get paid.

Paying the players will kill college athletics. It is totally counter to the whole idea of collegiate sports.

I understand the issues, so don’t blare at me. Universities are making huge $ off sports, so it’s not equitable. But, just because it’s broken doesn’t mean you blow the whole thing up and make these university programs professional organizations.

I agree with you 100% when we talk about "the whole idea of collegiate sports."

The rub comes when you look at all that money being made by the coaches and universities while the players are getting none of it. The system doesn't pass a simple smell test. All the while, players have, until recently, been restricted as to where they can choose to play because it might be unfair to the universities or make it hard for a coach to assemble a roster.

Letting the kids have free run at the candy counter at a gas station is OK, but the school cannot give each player $20 to get whatever they want.

 

[slugboy]

The oral arguments look bad for the NCAA. However, long time court observers (reporters, lawyers, et al) usually caution “don’t pay too much attention to the oral arguments”.
Even so, it still looks bad for the NCAA.
Regarding the NCAA protecting small schools: the NCAA protects itself. It needs the big schools and the small schools. It needs the. It needs the big schools more, but without the small and medium schools it doesn’t exist. So it plays a game that looks like a weird balancing act from outside.
I hold some opinions that probably look contradictory

• The NCAA unfairly profits from players’ labor
• Players should get paid for their work
• Fans would rather watch college sports than minor league sports
• College sports probably won’t survive a shift to pro/minor league free markets

The NFL and other pro leagues aren’t free markets either. Baseball might be the closest to free market