House v NCAA

[1766]

I'm not referencing Alston being challenged or not. Wouldn't surprise me either way. The only statement I'm making is it's good for the student-athletes that get to partake. Nothing more, nothing less.

[wgdsr]

I'm not referencing Alston being challenged or not. Wouldn't surprise me either way. The only statement I'm making is it's good for the student-athletes that get to partake. Nothing more, nothing less.

ok, first i come in peace and we're just talking.
and thanks for the clarification.

but what i was replying to from the quote thread was

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.

where my slant, and i'm pretty sure a fan's, is that the nc$$ and the p5s have taken a look at some of the conclusions and advice from alston and said -- "no, thanks."

you may have interpreted to mean he didn't think even giving what's been given so far (nil, etc.) will stick.

but what's being said is nc$$ and p5s have decided unilaterally and together, like a cartel does, what the price of eggs or labor should be in the market. and then sets that price. dissent isn't allowed. and they're doing this in the face of a ruling that tells them they need to start doing the complete opposite. stop, as a group, limiting what their "employees" can earn.

they were given some time here to figure it out properly, scotus was only able to rule on the issues that were put forth a couple years ago. but they did advise on the rest. they were forced to give in to nil, the revenue share bit was up next. nc$$ and p5s are calling an end around reverse on 4th and 3, ditching the o-coordinator's play and drawing it up in the dirt. we'll see how it works out for them.

[AreaLax]

Last I knew PLL didn’t release the attendance because it’s poor

that's not true, it's up 12%.
and impressions are at a gazillion.

Did they provide numbers or just said it’s up 12%? Just wondering

it was a joke. they never do.

Interesting for all the hype for the Maryland Whipsnakes playing their “Homecoming” game it doesn’t look anywhere near a sellout

[oldbartman]

Last I knew PLL didn’t release the attendance because it’s poor

that's not true, it's up 12%.
and impressions are at a gazillion.

Did they provide numbers or just said it’s up 12%? Just wondering

it was a joke. they never do.

Interesting for all the hype for the Maryland Whipsnakes playing their “Homecoming” game it doesn’t look anywhere near a sellout

90+ degrees in the stands with no breeze, 101 on the field and prime vacation season for a lot of America. Charm City isn't a big vacation destination from what I remember. Tough time to get fans in seats.

[OSVAlacrosse]

Last I knew PLL didn’t release the attendance because it’s poor

that's not true, it's up 12%.
and impressions are at a gazillion.

Did they provide numbers or just said it’s up 12%? Just wondering

it was a joke. they never do.

Interesting for all the hype for the Maryland Whipsnakes playing their “Homecoming” game it doesn’t look anywhere near a sellout

90+ degrees in the stands with no breeze, 101 on the field and prime vacation season for a lot of America. Charm City isn't a big vacation destination from what I remember. Tough time to get fans in seats.

The first year the PLL played and it was sold out and packed, there was also a major youth tournament that weekend with games at Towson U and Goucher. It was the same night as Crabfeast. PLL should align games with youth tournaments. Many families are staying in Baltimore and easy activity for a Saturday night. Although not sure what any of this has to do with House v. the NCAA?

[Farfromgeneva]

Last I knew PLL didn’t release the attendance because it’s poor

that's not true, it's up 12%.
and impressions are at a gazillion.

Did they provide numbers or just said it’s up 12%? Just wondering

it was a joke. they never do.

Interesting for all the hype for the Maryland Whipsnakes playing their “Homecoming” game it doesn’t look anywhere near a sellout

90+ degrees in the stands with no breeze, 101 on the field and prime vacation season for a lot of America. Charm City isn't a big vacation destination from what I remember. Tough time to get fans in seats.

Should I be if you can still get buckets of Long Island ice tea at the howl at the moon in power plant.

[Farfromgeneva]

Anytime a college asminsitrator talks about “the kids” remember this piece and how they sell kids out like an auction for football money .

How college sports deliver the world's Olympic stars

Avery Lotz

Share on facebook (opens in new window)

Share on twitter (opens in new window)

Share on linkedin (opens in new window)

Share on email (opens in new window)
Suni Lee competes for Auburn at a gymnastics meet.
Sunisa Lee of Auburn competes on the floor during a meet against Georgia at Neville Arena on February 24, 2023 in Auburn, Alabama. Photo: Stew Milne/Getty Images
This year, more than 1,200 current, former and incoming NCAA athletes are competing in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games — and more than 840 are chasing gold for a country outside the United States.

Why it matters: College sports have been a key pipeline for Team USA talent throughout the decades of the Olympics — but American universities and their facilities have also evolved as training grounds for international competitors.
Some of Team USA's most recognizable names — like Sunisa Lee, Sha'Carri Richardson and Katie Ledecky — have competed on both the Olympic and NCAA stage.
And those NCAA roots transcend international borders, with athletes like swimmer Léon Marchand, France's record-shattering prodigy in the pool, competing in the U.S. during his time as an Arizona State Sun Devil.
By the numbers: According to the NCAA's Olympics dashboard data, 253 NCAA schools are represented by 125 different countries in Paris this summer.

The U.S., Canada and Australia have the most NCAA athletes going for gold.
In 2021, some 96 Canadian athletes with NCAA ties competed in Tokyo, but this year, according to NCAA data, over 130 NCAA athletes competed for Team USA's northern neighbors.
The University of Southern California is at the top of the podium for Olympic representation, sending 59 athletes from 22 different countries to the international stage.
Even France, the host of this year's Games, has 19 NCAA athletes competing — six of whom, including superstar Marchand, are swimmers.
Zoom out: Following a unanimous Supreme Court decision that further eroded the NCAA's embattled amateurism definition, the NCAA approved a policy allowing athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness since states across the country were developing their own NIL legislation.

Gymnastics is one sport that has seen massive shifts in recent years following NIL rule changes: Five of seven U.S. female gymnasts sent to Paris (alternates included) — Lee, Jordan Chiles, Jade Carey, Joscelyn Roberson and Leanne Wong — are also current, former or incoming college competitors.
Before those 2021 changes, many athletes were presented with two starkly different paths: profit from an elite career and give up on college sports or remain an "amateur" and compete for an NCAA program.
What they're saying: The amount of countries earning medals at the Games has increased, University of Delaware sports management professor Matthew Robinson said, highlighting the movement of international athletes training in the U.S. — sometimes funded by their own governments' sports ministries.

Robinson, who partnered with the USOPC and the IOC Olympic Solidarity Fund to create international coach development programs, noted that research shows "50% of international sports success has nothing to do with sport" and rather stems from macro variables where the U.S. has an edge, like climate, GDP and population.
Yes, but: Some Olympic sports, notably those that do not bring in the big bucks, are still at risk of being booted from the collegiate lineup.

Stanford, which sent the second most athletes of any NCAA school to the Games this year and the most for Team USA, decided in 2020 to slash nine Olympic sports from its 36 varsity teams as the school's athletic budget became emaciated by pandemic stresses.

Unlike other countries, the U.S. government does not have a centralized sports ministry — placing the burden on the nation's expansive college sports framework to develop the country's peak talent. However, many programs' departments are sailing through choppy financial seas as the economic model of college sports continues to evolve.
The NCAA may need to reevaluate its approach to non-revenue sports "to make sure ... we're accepting that responsibility to be partners in developing our (Olympic) national teams," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in 2021 on the heels of a massive update to the NCAA's amateurism bylaws.
What's next: Conversations about revenue-sharing deals and paying college athletes also pose new uncertainties to the bond between collegiate and elite sports.

In May, the NCAA and its power conferences approved new rules that will allow programs to directly pay college athletes, though there are still multiple steps that must be taken to make those rules a reality.
As athletic departments brace for a looming new business model, fears about where revenue will be redirected (say, to paying star football athletes) — and what that could mean for non-revenue sports that often produce Olympic athletes — mount.
"So that's the one concern ... are there going to be sports being dropped?" Robinson said. "Because at the end of the day, the football dog must get fed."
Go deeper: Gymnastics Giants: The schools that make the U.S. Olympic team

[44WeWantMore]

I don't know where you got that from, but your source is either lying or taking dictation from a liar.

Stanford, which sent the second most athletes of any NCAA school to the Games this year and the most for Team USA, decided in 2020 to slash nine Olympic sports from its 36 varsity teams as the school's athletic budget became emaciated by pandemic stresses.

Before changing their mind, a Stanford spokesman said that *no amount* of dedicated funding could save the sports targeted for elimination.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don't know where you got that from, but your source is either lying or taking dictation from a liar.

Stanford, which sent the second most athletes of any NCAA school to the Games this year and the most for Team USA, decided in 2020 to slash nine Olympic sports from its 36 varsity teams as the school's athletic budget became emaciated by pandemic stresses.

Before changing their mind, a Stanford spokesman said that *no amount* of dedicated funding could save the sports targeted for elimination.

Take it up with axios. Not usually known to be very biased or a liar. Can an institution even be a liar? Why choose to use That word? Interesting choice.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/10/ncaa-s ... ympics-nil

Why use the word liar? Misinformed and other word options existed.
Your response doesn’t address my prior of comment the at higher ed sells chidkren out for $. Sports, research, culture. They are some of the biggest trusts and yet get perceived reputations so much better Taganrog bankers and lawyers who are more honest in their pursuits.

[44WeWantMore]

I do not doubt that Axios took accuate dictation, but the facts speak for themselves. Stanford simultaneously claimed budget pressures forced the decision yet announced that no amount of dedicated funding could reverse their decision.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do not doubt that Axios took accuate dictation, but the facts speak for themselves. Stanford simultaneously claimed budget pressures forced the decision yet announced that no amount of dedicated funding could reverse their decision.

So one claim is superior to another because you hear the one primary first hand or you just believe one to be more true than another? I have a friend from college, former solid lacrosse player named Jamie Breslin (https://hwsathletics.com/aa.aspx?hid=260) who’s an assistant AD there I could ask. (John vandermoer who’s a dick was the sailing coach part of the pay for admission scandal also a Hobart alum but less quality resource obviously).

Seriously if you didn’t hear it why don’t think the axios reporters source is weaker than the other? I don’t know the truth but I can make a call if I cared to Jamie and find out. I’m certainly not running around calling folks liars over a discrepancy like this. That’s aggressive. I know spokespeople for presidents of this country have live but this one certainly must be accurate and truthful? Is it a relative?

[coda]

I don't know where you got that from, but your source is either lying or taking dictation from a liar.

Stanford, which sent the second most athletes of any NCAA school to the Games this year and the most for Team USA, decided in 2020 to slash nine Olympic sports from its 36 varsity teams as the school's athletic budget became emaciated by pandemic stresses.

Before changing their mind, a Stanford spokesman said that *no amount* of dedicated funding could save the sports targeted for elimination.

Are they?

Stanford's athletic department generated $136.9 million in revenue during the 2023 fiscal year (FY2023), but also had $157.9 million in expenses, resulting in a $33.3 million shortfall without campus support of $12.3 million.

Most athletic departments are not self-funded. This is not uncommon. I can’t even imagine the argument that the world is better off if Stanford diverts money to athletics from academics.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don't know where you got that from, but your source is either lying or taking dictation from a liar.

Stanford, which sent the second most athletes of any NCAA school to the Games this year and the most for Team USA, decided in 2020 to slash nine Olympic sports from its 36 varsity teams as the school's athletic budget became emaciated by pandemic stresses.

Before changing their mind, a Stanford spokesman said that *no amount* of dedicated funding could save the sports targeted for elimination.

Are they?

Stanford's athletic department generated $136.9 million in revenue during the 2023 fiscal year (FY2023), but also had $157.9 million in expenses, resulting in a $33.3 million shortfall without campus support of $12.3 million.

Most athletic departments are not self-funded. This is not uncommon. I can’t even imagine the argument that the world is better off if Stanford diverts money to athletics from academics.

The spokesperson said that I recall it but to take that at face and call everyone else liars is aggressive unless your related to the spokesperson given their ins is often to obfuscate.

Maybe he was listening to the great Henry Rollins song right before and not stuck in his head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awY1MRlMKMc

[wgdsr]

so in about an hour judge wilken is going to be hearing the arguments from the settlement filed on why she should give preliminary approval. sportico's take is that we'll hear about her decision within a couple weeks:
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234795985/

another outlet chiming in.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... ncaa-next/
personally, i'd take any opinion of the author with a gigantic grain of salt. says wilken's deciding today, says the p4's can opt in, several other items. just basically sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about. journalism is dead. but has a bunch of links in the article, and many quotes from ad's and nc$$ admins that can give an idea of how the myriad players in this drama see things playing out. for me, the links tied to sankey and recently outgoing tosu ad smith stood out. sankey seems ready to blow it all up, and he's actually been a stabilizing force imo the last several years. or at least compared to what he could be.

and last, a link from the above article. former ad smith for some of it.. the tiering of sports has been mentioned prior. what's interesting is that:
- tosu is absolutely killing it. #1 or #2 in revenue and about to get a big raise.
- tosu sponsors more sports than about anyone. they've probably run out of sports at this point, very pro big athletic department.
- and yet... they've already set up a plan to deemphasize some sports to pay for this. their last pigskin transfer class alone it says in previous article cost them $20 million. now with their litany of mens sports, the $8 million they'll save in 2029 could include stuff outside of lax... rifle, mens volleyball, yada. but if THEY have already put a scissor to the athletic dept, what's to become of $100-$150m schools that are gonna have to come up with some dough? and quick.

also some other good info in this regarding takes, some of which have been discussed here before. the end of the 16 sport minimum was interesting. same author as previous article, when he chimes in on his own (i.e. big 12 deal, schools have to be proportional when in fact almost none of them are) he again seems a fish out of water:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... ettlement/

[a fan]

so in about an hour judge wilken is going to be hearing the arguments from the settlement filed on why she should give preliminary approval. sportico's take is that we'll hear about her decision within a couple weeks:
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234795985/

The American Justice system is weird.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken: 'ok, we're all here to determine if the deal before us is “fair, reasonable and adequate."

NCAA lawyer: "yes, your honor".

Wilken: "So when you sat down with the players and their attorneys, this is what they thought was fair?"

NCAA lawyer: (pregnant pause)

NCAA lawyer: (pregnant pause)

NCAA lawyer: ( still pregnant pause)

NCAA lawyer: "um, no, we didn't think we needed to talk to them, or ask them. That's perfectly fine, and makes perfect sense, right?"


Welcome to American Jurisprudence, I guess. Try explaining how this works to foreigners, see how far you get.

[wgdsr]

so in about an hour judge wilken is going to be hearing the arguments from the settlement filed on why she should give preliminary approval. sportico's take is that we'll hear about her decision within a couple weeks:
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234795985/

The American Justice system is weird.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken: 'ok, we're all here to determine if the deal before us is “fair, reasonable and adequate."

NCAA lawyer: "yes, your honor".

Wilken: "So when you sat down with the players and their attorneys, this is what they thought was fair?"

NCAA lawyer: (pregnant pause)

NCAA lawyer: (pregnant pause)

NCAA lawyer: ( still pregnant pause)

NCAA lawyer: "um, no, we didn't think we needed to talk to them, or ask them. That's perfectly fine, and makes perfect sense, right?"


Welcome to American Jurisprudence, I guess. Try explaining how this works to foreigners, see how far you get.

and the irony is the lawsuit(s) aiming to get settled had as reasons that the nc$$ was exploiting athletes without representation and capping their earning power.

so 2 points:
1) there is an opt in/opt out for anyone. opt outs can still sue or join someone else's suit, and there are active ones going.
2) the settlement is really for legacy athletes (the plaintiffs) getting paid off. the nc$$ is tacking on the revenue share part in order to shop antitrust protection, mostly to congress. and to delay cba for now.

[wgdsr]

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/
wilken sending them back to the drawing board, nonplussed on nil restriction language or implementation. as well as other filing shortcomings including future athletes.

love the nc$$ attorney saying basically "we're not sure we have a deal then, this is what we're willing to do and it all needs to be in there". they've literally lost every case for almost 10 years, is facing a judge who has presided over some of them, and face by some estimates a $20 billion liability. they still think they have hand.

[a fan]

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/
wilken sending them back to the drawing board, nonplussed on nil restriction language or implementation. as well as other filing shortcomings including future athletes.

love the nc$$ attorney saying basically "we're not sure we have a deal then, this is what we're willing to do and it all needs to be in there". they've literally lost every case for almost 10 years, is facing a judge who has presided over some of them, and face by some estimates a $20 billion liability. they still think they have hand.

The mindset folks have surrounding this stuff is SO weird. Reading the comments from Americans where they think it makes sense to cap players ability to earn......but NOT coaches, trainers, admin. Oh they can avail themselves of the free market. Wait...what?

Show of hands: who here in America wants a third party to arbitrarily decide how much money you can earn? None of you, right? Well, then why would anyone ever advocate doing that to a fellow American?

I don't understand how folks don't get that's what the NCAA is trying to do.....stifle earnings, and they're doing it without talking with players.

This ain't the Soviet Union, comrade NCAA.

[steel_hop]

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/
wilken sending them back to the drawing board, nonplussed on nil restriction language or implementation. as well as other filing shortcomings including future athletes.

love the nc$$ attorney saying basically "we're not sure we have a deal then, this is what we're willing to do and it all needs to be in there". they've literally lost every case for almost 10 years, is facing a judge who has presided over some of them, and face by some estimates a $20 billion liability. they still think they have hand.

The mindset folks have surrounding this stuff is SO weird. Reading the comments from Americans where they think it makes sense to cap players ability to earn......but NOT coaches, trainers, admin. Oh they can avail themselves of the free market. Wait...what?

Show of hands: who here in America wants a third party to arbitrarily decide how much money you can earn? None of you, right? Well, then why would anyone ever advocate doing that to a fellow American?

I don't understand how folks don't get that's what the NCAA is trying to do.....stifle earnings, and they're doing it without talking with players.

This ain't the Soviet Union, comrade NCAA.

Two things
1) Anyone that joins a union is letting a "3rd party to arbitrarily decide how much money you can earn." I also understand that where this is eventually going. The involvement of any union is going to be wild given the vast differences between schools, conferences, sports, etc. If I was on a pro-union athlete, I'd want nothing to do with the legacy unions out there given their level of corruption and bloat and look toward the NFLPA, MLBPA, or the like for support.

2) Is it really earnings? I'd call what is going on more like bribes. Earnings you get compensated based on your performance or work. Most of these NIL deals are inducements to attend a college (note, I don't blame any player from working this angle to get as much as he/she can). The guys driving the bus on this (football and men's basketball players) already get full "compensation" in the form of free education, room, board and other support - obviously other sports aren't all full scholarships (and those are the ones that are going to get whacked in any deal). The rest should certainly be on the table but said "rest" should be for actual work - i.e., going to signings, IG earnings, performance on the field, etc. It shouldn't just be for showing up to school X.

[wgdsr]

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/
wilken sending them back to the drawing board, nonplussed on nil restriction language or implementation. as well as other filing shortcomings including future athletes.

love the nc$$ attorney saying basically "we're not sure we have a deal then, this is what we're willing to do and it all needs to be in there". they've literally lost every case for almost 10 years, is facing a judge who has presided over some of them, and face by some estimates a $20 billion liability. they still think they have hand.

The mindset folks have surrounding this stuff is SO weird. Reading the comments from Americans where they think it makes sense to cap players ability to earn......but NOT coaches, trainers, admin. Oh they can avail themselves of the free market. Wait...what?

Show of hands: who here in America wants a third party to arbitrarily decide how much money you can earn? None of you, right? Well, then why would anyone ever advocate doing that to a fellow American?

I don't understand how folks don't get that's what the NCAA is trying to do.....stifle earnings, and they're doing it without talking with players.

This ain't the Soviet Union, comrade NCAA.

never really caught much from sportico before, they seem to do a more in depth job than most. story below this one on my feed had the nc$$ disqualifying qr codes on the back of oklahoma st helmets. which raised money for a general nil collective. called it advertising on the uniform. no other product other than money raise for athletes. or maybe they were pushing the qr brand?

meantime, advertising is all the rage when broadcasting a football game. or in the stadium. play a bowl game and a big patch of the bowl is required on the uni. you could not make this stuff up with the nc$$ the last 2 decades. no one would believe you.