House v NCAA

[wgdsr]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

bet against the monster that is tosu at your own peril.

[Typical Lax Dad]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

bet against the monster that is tosu at your own peril.

I would shut it down so fast it would make these students heads spin. Charge them tuition, room and board and force them to pay their own way like everyone else does that has a “job”. Ain’t nobody forcing anyone to play a college sport.

[wgdsr]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

bet against the monster that is tosu at your own peril.

I would shut it down so fast it would make these students heads spin. Charge them tuition, room and board and force them to pay their own way like everyone else does that has a “job”. Ain’t nobody forcing anyone to play a college sport.

do that, and you wouldn't get within 100 miles of columbus ever again.
those huskies champs don't win themselves. and where would storrs be without them?

[Typical Lax Dad]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

bet against the monster that is tosu at your own peril.

I would shut it down so fast it would make these students heads spin. Charge them tuition, room and board and force them to pay their own way like everyone else does that has a “job”. Ain’t nobody forcing anyone to play a college sport.

do that, and you wouldn't get within 100 miles of columbus ever again.
those huskies champs don't win themselves. and where would storrs be without them?

For 80% of the schools

[oldbartman]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

"NEGATIVE REVENUE SPORT"..... Come on.. lax is a HUGE $$$ sport....

[AreaLax]

This article has some feedback from Tills, Tiffany and Dino

https://x.com/usalacrossemag/status/181 ... EO2hFStaxg

[a fan]

This article has some feedback from Tills, Tiffany and Dino

https://x.com/usalacrossemag/status/181 ... EO2hFStaxg

The thing that's missing here....all this article is about, is the proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement clearly doesn't address Alston v NCAA. And neither do any of the comments from coaches here.

The part I chuckle at is that it hasn't occurred to coaches that pay cuts should be coming to entire athletic departments, bloated from a lack of market forces.

Because in what world does it make sense, for example, for the UMich lacrosse coach to make tens of thousands of dollars more (and in some cases, double) than a tenured PhD professor in the UMich Physics Department. And at a State School, on Federal and State taxpayer's dime?

All of this has had ZERO input from players. Just when I thought they couldn't get greedier.....here we are. They have COMPLETELY lost their way, and their mission, which is SUPPOSED to be to educate students. Yet the students are nowhere in this conversation, outside of "this is what we're doing, shut up and like it".

You think the affected schools would be smart enough to say: "we're all going to take a 20% pay cut in every position in the athletic dept. in an effort to keep more kids playing sports, because sports are important.

Yeah, nope. Man, am I rooting for the Player's Union now.

[1766]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

[a fan]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

[Chousnake]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

The issue of whether college athletes are employees is many years away from being decided. The Dartmouth case has been appealed to the full NLRB. if the NLRB affirms the February decision of the Hearing Officer and finds that the basketball players are employees, the next step is for Dartmouth to refuse to bargain with the "union." Then an unfair labor practice would need to be filed with the NLRB. When that unfair labor practice results in an adverse ruling vs Dartmouth, Dartmouth would appeal to federal court and the entire case, from employment status to bargaining, would be heard in federal court. This process will take a very long time - many years. I don't see Congress giving this issue priority, nor do I see any form of bipartisan agreement coming any time soon that will lead to legislation one way or the other. So, don't hold your breath on the collective bargaining solution to House.

A major part of the problem with the articles and pundits trying to sort out House (excluding the recent articles on lax in IL and USA lacrosse) is that they are focusing on basketball and football in the power conference schools. In reality, the overwhelming number (98%?) of college athletes do not play these sports at these colleges. The recent articles posted above seem to indicate that the impact of House on lax will be absolutely nothing - no change in scholarships, no change in roster sizes (now that the Covid years are over), no institution of payments to players. I find that to be refreshing and good for the sport in general. D1 lax is made up of very few schools from power conferences and many schools that are more academically focused. It would be devastating for the sport if the power conference schools gained a significant monetary advantage.

Players today play lax knowing that it does not yield financial benefits in college, and certainly does not lead to a career after college. If that changes, the sport unfortunately will never be the same.

[pcowlax]

Very nice post. I would just add though that all of the posts speculating that there will not be much change in lax are not saying so because there will be some structural barrier to great change but rather because they think the schools won't want to spend the money to fund many more scholarships. This may well be true but I wouldn't be so sure. I completely agree that we are not going to see a team with anywhere near 48 scholarships but could you see Cuse or Ohio St fund 20? I definitely can. This isn't talking about NIL or booster money funneled through the school, just the school's own athletic department budget. Yes, many of these budgets are in the red, yes, the ongoing boons from new TV deals are going to mostly go to increasing football scholarship numbers but for schools with just massive amounts of money (OSH) or where lax is a source of outsized pride (Cuse), to think that this is not going to impact lax is almost certainly wrong. There are indeed going to continue to be payments to players (a lot more payments) and some schools will indeed have most scholarships than others. Whether that is 15 vs 25 will determine how much of an impact that will actually have.

[a fan]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

The issue of whether college athletes are employees is many years away from being decided. The Dartmouth case has been appealed to the full NLRB. if the NLRB affirms the February decision of the Hearing Officer and finds that the basketball players are employees, the next step is for Dartmouth to refuse to bargain with the "union." Then an unfair labor practice would need to be filed with the NLRB. When that unfair labor practice results in an adverse ruling vs Dartmouth, Dartmouth would appeal to federal court and the entire case, from employment status to bargaining, would be heard in federal court. This process will take a very long time - many years. I don't see Congress giving this issue priority, nor do I see any form of bipartisan agreement coming any time soon that will lead to legislation one way or the other. So, don't hold your breath on the collective bargaining solution to House.

A major part of the problem with the articles and pundits trying to sort out House (excluding the recent articles on lax in IL and USA lacrosse) is that they are focusing on basketball and football in the power conference schools. In reality, the overwhelming number (98%?) of college athletes do not play these sports at these colleges. The recent articles posted above seem to indicate that the impact of House on lax will be absolutely nothing - no change in scholarships, no change in roster sizes (now that the Covid years are over), no institution of payments to players. I find that to be refreshing and good for the sport in general. D1 lax is made up of very few schools from power conferences and many schools that are more academically focused. It would be devastating for the sport if the power conference schools gained a significant monetary advantage.

Players today play lax knowing that it does not yield financial benefits in college, and certainly does not lead to a career after college. If that changes, the sport unfortunately will never be the same.

I'd like to think we're all justifiably angry that greed is on the verge of ruining non-revenue college sports. Hope that doesn't happen, obviously.

Congress can't agree on what day today is, so I'd be shocked to see them get something done. Especially if the view is that the students/union are getting the short end of the stick. And they are clearly getting that now, as no one has bothered to include them in the House "settlement".

To me, it says everything that only one of the parties involved in the settlement are crafting the new landscape....they have no interest in hearing from the studen-athletes, and just want the cash register to keep flowing.

[wgdsr]

This article has some feedback from Tills, Tiffany and Dino

https://x.com/usalacrossemag/status/181 ... EO2hFStaxg

The thing that's missing here....all this article is about, is the proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement clearly doesn't address Alston v NCAA. And neither do any of the comments from coaches here.

The part I chuckle at is that it hasn't occurred to coaches that pay cuts should be coming to entire athletic departments, bloated from a lack of market forces.

Because in what world does it make sense, for example, for the UMich lacrosse coach to make tens of thousands of dollars more (and in some cases, double) than a tenured PhD professor in the UMich Physics Department. And at a State School, on Federal and State taxpayer's dime?

All of this has had ZERO input from players. Just when I thought they couldn't get greedier.....here we are. They have COMPLETELY lost their way, and their mission, which is SUPPOSED to be to educate students. Yet the students are nowhere in this conversation, outside of "this is what we're doing, shut up and like it".

You think the affected schools would be smart enough to say: "we're all going to take a 20% pay cut in every position in the athletic dept. in an effort to keep more kids playing sports, because sports are important.

Yeah, nope. Man, am I rooting for the Player's Union now.

hahaha. man, i'm just gonna keep the popcorn out on this. a welcome respite from tomahawknation.com or choptalk.com blogs about how the school sued in talahassee county and will be out of the acc by last october.

the nc$$ is going full monty, and why not? at the minimum, they'll get their beefs mostly solved with old legacy nil. eventually.
as far as new money, i haven't taken to take the time between the 3 wrapped together lawsuits who they're actually settling against. don't really care, other than to say i'll presume to conclude it's not with every single present and future athlete and ipso facto they're negotiating against themselves.

so: the nc$$:
- looking to get an approved settlement that they can then walk across the street to congress to get approval to do what they want, under the umbrella of "look at these guys, getting stuff done! and a revenue share to boot!"

couple things:
- i told you about the judge blowing off non-p5 school houston christian. could mean any kind of thing, maybe just her interpretation of constitutional law and not "we're getting this over the finish line".

outcome i expect: 100% non-p5s suing if/when approved that they have to pick up a cool billion to pay off old p5 athletes. this is absolutely happening. that's 2 to 3x what the usa lacrosse article suggests.

also, the judge? she ruled in o'bannon as it turns out. for the plaintiffs. so... maybe she is going to take some scissors to this agreement for the athletes. time will tell.

i'd mentioned months ago that athletic departments had in fact been taking at least a small axe to their departments, and were writing in some more into contracts even for coaches in this event. tbd.

last, just a nugget, but mentioned yesterday -- heard several sources unearthed from coaches that big donor's kids were some of the football walk ons they had. now, those guys will most definitely be included on rosters if the coaches have any brains, but all it takes is one junior whale to not be and.... you've got a new plaintiff!

where are the collective bargainimg ambulance chasers in all of this?!?!? shouldn't they be the first interview on the pat macafee show every day? or on a show that's unaffiliated with nc$$ at least?

[Chousnake]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

The issue of whether college athletes are employees is many years away from being decided. The Dartmouth case has been appealed to the full NLRB. if the NLRB affirms the February decision of the Hearing Officer and finds that the basketball players are employees, the next step is for Dartmouth to refuse to bargain with the "union." Then an unfair labor practice would need to be filed with the NLRB. When that unfair labor practice results in an adverse ruling vs Dartmouth, Dartmouth would appeal to federal court and the entire case, from employment status to bargaining, would be heard in federal court. This process will take a very long time - many years. I don't see Congress giving this issue priority, nor do I see any form of bipartisan agreement coming any time soon that will lead to legislation one way or the other. So, don't hold your breath on the collective bargaining solution to House.

A major part of the problem with the articles and pundits trying to sort out House (excluding the recent articles on lax in IL and USA lacrosse) is that they are focusing on basketball and football in the power conference schools. In reality, the overwhelming number (98%?) of college athletes do not play these sports at these colleges. The recent articles posted above seem to indicate that the impact of House on lax will be absolutely nothing - no change in scholarships, no change in roster sizes (now that the Covid years are over), no institution of payments to players. I find that to be refreshing and good for the sport in general. D1 lax is made up of very few schools from power conferences and many schools that are more academically focused. It would be devastating for the sport if the power conference schools gained a significant monetary advantage.

Players today play lax knowing that it does not yield financial benefits in college, and certainly does not lead to a career after college. If that changes, the sport unfortunately will never be the same.

I'd like to think we're all justifiably angry that greed is on the verge of ruining non-revenue college sports. Hope that doesn't happen, obviously.

Congress can't agree on what day today is, so I'd be shocked to see them get something done. Especially if the view is that the students/union are getting the short end of the stick. And they are clearly getting that now, as no one has bothered to include them in the House "settlement".

To me, it says everything that only one of the parties involved in the settlement are crafting the new landscape....they have no interest in hearing from the studen-athletes, and just want the cash register to keep flowing.

Greed (aka major college football) is already ruining all college sports, including football. College football has had a negative impact on college hoops. It destroyed the old Big East, which was a college hoops treasure. The never-ending conference realignment to maximize tv rights revenues has destroyed multiple conferences, created monster conferences that make no geographic sense, has forced athletes in all sports but football to endure grueling travel (e.g. does USC really need to compete with Rutgers and fly athletes cross country for a Tuesday swim meet???), and destroyed rivalries. Do we really need 18 team conferences?

[Farfromgeneva]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

"NEGATIVE REVENUE SPORT"..... Come on.. lax is a HUGE $$$ sport....

Maybe he’s thinking like ent revenue/gross margin/contribution margin not actually revenue

[Farfromgeneva]

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.

bet against the [flash=]monster[/flash] that is tosu at your own peril.

Don’t you mean Golem?

[Farfromgeneva]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

The issue of whether college athletes are employees is many years away from being decided. The Dartmouth case has been appealed to the full NLRB. if the NLRB affirms the February decision of the Hearing Officer and finds that the basketball players are employees, the next step is for Dartmouth to refuse to bargain with the "union." Then an unfair labor practice would need to be filed with the NLRB. When that unfair labor practice results in an adverse ruling vs Dartmouth, Dartmouth would appeal to federal court and the entire case, from employment status to bargaining, would be heard in federal court. This process will take a very long time - many years. I don't see Congress giving this issue priority, nor do I see any form of bipartisan agreement coming any time soon that will lead to legislation one way or the other. So, don't hold your breath on the collective bargaining solution to House.

A major part of the problem with the articles and pundits trying to sort out House (excluding the recent articles on lax in IL and USA lacrosse) is that they are focusing on basketball and football in the power conference schools. In reality, the overwhelming number (98%?) of college athletes do not play these sports at these colleges. The recent articles posted above seem to indicate that the impact of House on lax will be absolutely nothing - no change in scholarships, no change in roster sizes (now that the Covid years are over), no institution of payments to players. I find that to be refreshing and good for the sport in general. D1 lax is made up of very few schools from power conferences and many schools that are more academically focused. It would be devastating for the sport if the power conference schools gained a significant monetary advantage.

Players today play lax knowing that it does not yield financial benefits in college, and certainly does not lead to a career after college. If that changes, the sport unfortunately will never be the same.

Ok so then some tech company cleared a platform (portal but not to confuse w transfer one ncaa has) and they’ll all be 1099s Uber style. Or each institution will have their own.

[a fan]

This article has some feedback from Tills, Tiffany and Dino

https://x.com/usalacrossemag/status/181 ... EO2hFStaxg

The thing that's missing here....all this article is about, is the proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement clearly doesn't address Alston v NCAA. And neither do any of the comments from coaches here.

The part I chuckle at is that it hasn't occurred to coaches that pay cuts should be coming to entire athletic departments, bloated from a lack of market forces.

Because in what world does it make sense, for example, for the UMich lacrosse coach to make tens of thousands of dollars more (and in some cases, double) than a tenured PhD professor in the UMich Physics Department. And at a State School, on Federal and State taxpayer's dime?

All of this has had ZERO input from players. Just when I thought they couldn't get greedier.....here we are. They have COMPLETELY lost their way, and their mission, which is SUPPOSED to be to educate students. Yet the students are nowhere in this conversation, outside of "this is what we're doing, shut up and like it".

You think the affected schools would be smart enough to say: "we're all going to take a 20% pay cut in every position in the athletic dept. in an effort to keep more kids playing sports, because sports are important.

Yeah, nope. Man, am I rooting for the Player's Union now.

hahaha. man, i'm just gonna keep the popcorn out on this. a welcome respite from tomahawknation.com or choptalk.com blogs about how the school sued in talahassee county and will be out of the acc by last october.

the nc$$ is going full monty, and why not? at the minimum, they'll get their beefs mostly solved with old legacy nil. eventually.
as far as new money, i haven't taken to take the time between the 3 wrapped together lawsuits who they're actually settling against. don't really care, other than to say i'll presume to conclude it's not with every single present and future athlete and ipso facto they're negotiating against themselves.

so: the nc$$:
- looking to get an approved settlement that they can then walk across the street to congress to get approval to do what they want, under the umbrella of "look at these guys, getting stuff done! and a revenue share to boot!"

couple things:
- i told you about the judge blowing off non-p5 school houston christian. could mean any kind of thing, maybe just her interpretation of constitutional law and not "we're getting this over the finish line".

outcome i expect: 100% non-p5s suing if/when approved that they have to pick up a cool billion to pay off old p5 athletes. this is absolutely happening. that's 2 to 3x what the usa lacrosse article suggests.

also, the judge? she ruled in o'bannon as it turns out. for the plaintiffs. so... maybe she is going to take some scissors to this agreement for the athletes. time will tell.

i'd mentioned months ago that athletic departments had in fact been taking at least a small axe to their departments, and were writing in some more into contracts even for coaches in this event. tbd.

last, just a nugget, but mentioned yesterday -- heard several sources unearthed from coaches that big donor's kids were some of the football walk ons they had. now, those guys will most definitely be included on rosters if the coaches have any brains, but all it takes is one junior whale to not be and.... you've got a new plaintiff!

where are the collective bargainimg ambulance chasers in all of this?!?!? shouldn't they be the first interview on the pat macafee show every day? or on a show that's unaffiliated with nc$$ at least?

Total popcorn time. American law is just.....weird. What I'm looking at is what you're looking at: all it takes is ONE kid with a rich dad, or a rich lawyer dad to sue. Surely the lawyers involved in this "House deal" told their clients as much, and told them the whole thing is built on sand.

Appreciate all your posts on the matter.....

[1766]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

That's correct, I've never insinuated Alston doesn't apply to all NCAA member schools. But not all NCAA member schools distribute Alston money to the student-athletes. I believe all Big Ten schools do. Beyond that I am not sure but I would imagine SEC and probably Acc schools also.

As to a player's union, that's coming. Welcome to collective bargaining.

[wgdsr]

Alston is a real benefit for the student-athletes at schools that are able to distribute such funds. I can't see that being challenged at this point.

Alston applies to the ENTIRE NCAA. Thanks to wgdsr and others posters, i understand this current "deal", for lack of a better term, does not apply to the entire NCAA.

They are nowhere close to sorting this out.

From where I sit, the biggest question is: when does a player's union form?

I found this.....

"In a hearing Tuesday, GOP representatives argued that labor unions would disrupt college sports and lead to program cuts. Democrats said student athletes deserve a seat at the bargaining table."

D's and R's already picking sides.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/gov ... nel-argues

That's correct, I've never insinuated Alston doesn't apply to all NCAA member schools. But not all NCAA member schools distribute Alston money to the student-athletes. I believe all Big Ten schools do. Beyond that I am not sure but I would imagine SEC and probably Acc schools also.

As to a player's union, that's coming. Welcome to collective bargaining.

what you were responding to (i think) was that the settlement didn't "address" alston, and your reply was that you didn't see it being challenged, being that it's a positive, etc..

this settlement is absolutely challenging alston. 100%. and it is being put forth by the same schools you're saying have been all about distributing money.
here is what happened: alston judges said you have been operating outside the law forever, get it fixed and we suggest collective bargaining.

nc$$'s response? get the old guys who we prevented from making money to settle, and forget about that collective bargaining thing for the future athletes, let's see if we can lock them up to a number that we like without asking if they like it. and then we'll get our buddies in congress to prevent anyone from suing us about it.

the welcome to collective bargaining shingle hasn't been put out yet. it's contingent on whether the nc$$ has the votes. they're mostly incompetent in indianapolis and they can't agree on what to put on a hot dog in dc so i doubt it, but that's the play for now. the nc$$ and the p5 have the big middle finger up on scotus and their thoughts.