House v NCAA

[Farfromgeneva]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

Roster limit set by the NCAA is collusion. The NCAA can't limit the number of lacrosse players any more than they can limit the number of Physics Professors Hopkins hires.

From where I sit, this is where the first lawsuits will come: from kids that had scholarships last season, but don't this year because of roster size cuts.

This assumes there are players smart enough to sue, or parents who are smart enough to sue. How many kids won't be able to attend their schools because of lost scholarships from roster cuts?

I'd assume that class action suits are possible. We'll see. I've never understood why basketball and football players didn't unionize, so maybe students are too passive to sue.....

The ncaa has always just been an sro shield for the behaviors of 50 or
So college heads. It’s the college presidents and ads. My point is there’s workarounds if they want to. All sorts of collusion happens in soft forms all the time in business. Doesn’t have to be the ncaa can be a group of heads.

Oh, I agree. I guess all I'm saying is: how far do they want to push it, and chance that they'll get sued.

If I'm a kid at a school on even a partial scholarship, and get kicked off the team because of roster limits? I'm suing. No question.

Because unless they're stupid, the NCAA lawyers will do anything to keep from standing in front of Kavanaugh again....... where he'll say "what part of my ruling was unclear to you? This is America, and an outside entity can't cap the number of employees a business has. "

I'm just not all that sure that students or their parents either read, or understand the SCOTUS ruling.

I’m owed $580k for contractual services performed on two deals having received a small partial payment in each and I have chosen not to sue. Suing is an expensive, painful and costly (non monetary) process. So yeah maybe someone could sue but I think we all talking about suing and going to court more than it’s reasonable practical. The kids athletic career is done and he may struggle finding a grad school if he wants that. Just like regular business you sue an employer and that what you’re suggesting.

So I don’t disagree codified ncaa imposed roster limits are problematic but they can get to the same place without them anyways.

[wgdsr]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

Roster limit set by the NCAA is collusion. The NCAA can't limit the number of lacrosse players any more than they can limit the number of Physics Professors Hopkins hires.

From where I sit, this is where the first lawsuits will come: from kids that had scholarships last season, but don't this year because of roster size cuts.

This assumes there are players smart enough to sue, or parents who are smart enough to sue. How many kids won't be able to attend their schools because of lost scholarships from roster cuts?

I'd assume that class action suits are possible. We'll see. I've never understood why basketball and football players didn't unionize, so maybe students are too passive to sue.....

The ncaa has always just been an sro shield for the behaviors of 50 or
So college heads. It’s the college presidents and ads. My point is there’s workarounds if they want to. All sorts of collusion happens in soft forms all the time in business. Doesn’t have to be the ncaa can be a group of heads.

Oh, I agree. I guess all I'm saying is: how far do they want to push it, and chance that they'll get sued.

If I'm a kid at a school on even a partial scholarship, and get kicked off the team because of roster limits? I'm suing. No question.

Because unless they're stupid, the NCAA lawyers will do anything to keep from standing in front of Kavanaugh again....... where he'll say "what part of my ruling was unclear to you? This is America, and an outside entity can't cap the number of employees a business has. "

I'm just not all that sure that students or their parents either read, or understand the SCOTUS ruling.

being on partial scholarship shouldn't matter.

the roster limits for these sports are pretty high. i'm surprised as i wonder why they're even making them now. if some school wants to have 70 lax players, why would the nc$$ care? all of this to avoid darrell royal stories? it goes from looking like a cost cutting measure to i don't know what.

if they get sued and lose... ok, no roster limits. strategy for a bit would likely be figuring out the plaintiff's # and signing an nda.

[a fan]

being on partial scholarship shouldn't matter.

Can you clarify here? Shouldn't matter....in what sense?

the roster limits for these sports are pretty high. i'm surprised as i wonder why they're even making them now. if some school wants to have 70 lax players, why would the nc$$ care? all of this to avoid darrell royal stories? it goes from looking like a cost cutting measure to i don't know what.

Only reason I can think of for roster limits it to keep as much money for the NCAA as possible....more students means more money to them.

But I agree....roster limits are stupid without a Union & collective bargaining in place.

if they get sued and lose... ok, no roster limits. strategy for a bit would likely be figuring out the plaintiff's # and signing an nda.

Well, there are now proven lawyers out there that have beaten the NCAA in court. If I'm a parent, that's who I'd call.

We'll see. Wouldn't surprise me if no one sued, FFG is likely right. I'm simply saying that I would personally sue if my kid lost a scholarship over roster caps, because the ruling says you can't do that.....the NCAA can't dictate compensation. The individual schools can. A third party (the NCAA) can't.

And from where I sit, the odds the NCAA would settle a lawsuit that deals with collusion are high...which is why I'd sue to get scholarship money back. Again, I'm no lawyer.

[wgdsr]

being on partial scholarship shouldn't matter.

Can you clarify here? Shouldn't matter....in what sense?

the roster limits for these sports are pretty high. i'm surprised as i wonder why they're even making them now. if some school wants to have 70 lax players, why would the nc$$ care? all of this to avoid darrell royal stories? it goes from looking like a cost cutting measure to i don't know what.

Only reason I can think of for roster limits it to keep as much money for the NCAA as possible....more students means more money to them.

But I agree....roster limits are stupid without a Union & collective bargaining in place.

if they get sued and lose... ok, no roster limits. strategy for a bit would likely be figuring out the plaintiff's # and signing an nda.

Well, there are now proven lawyers out there that have beaten the NCAA in court. If I'm a parent, that's who I'd call.

We'll see. Wouldn't surprise me if no one sued, FFG is likely right. I'm simply saying that I would personally sue if my kid lost a scholarship over roster caps, because the ruling says you can't do that.....the NCAA can't dictate compensation. The individual schools can. A third party (the NCAA) can't.

And from where I sit, the odds the NCAA would settle a lawsuit that deals with collusion are high...which is why I'd sue to get scholarship money back. Again, I'm no lawyer.

what i meant is what's of real value here for an equivalency sport like lacrosse (or a head count sport for football walk ons) is the spot. not the dough. a 1/4 scholly doesn't win you a whole lot. the filing goes to great pains to express all the benefits that a student athlete is provided for being on the team. they did the work for you. plus these are only typically guaranteed for 1 year at a time.

1 year partial = $12,000.
roster spot? priceless. mastercard?

[a fan]

being on partial scholarship shouldn't matter.

Can you clarify here? Shouldn't matter....in what sense?

the roster limits for these sports are pretty high. i'm surprised as i wonder why they're even making them now. if some school wants to have 70 lax players, why would the nc$$ care? all of this to avoid darrell royal stories? it goes from looking like a cost cutting measure to i don't know what.

Only reason I can think of for roster limits it to keep as much money for the NCAA as possible....more students means more money to them.

But I agree....roster limits are stupid without a Union & collective bargaining in place.

if they get sued and lose... ok, no roster limits. strategy for a bit would likely be figuring out the plaintiff's # and signing an nda.

Well, there are now proven lawyers out there that have beaten the NCAA in court. If I'm a parent, that's who I'd call.

We'll see. Wouldn't surprise me if no one sued, FFG is likely right. I'm simply saying that I would personally sue if my kid lost a scholarship over roster caps, because the ruling says you can't do that.....the NCAA can't dictate compensation. The individual schools can. A third party (the NCAA) can't.

And from where I sit, the odds the NCAA would settle a lawsuit that deals with collusion are high...which is why I'd sue to get scholarship money back. Again, I'm no lawyer.

what i meant is what's of real value here for an equivalency sport like lacrosse (or a head count sport for football walk ons) is the spot. not the dough. a 1/4 scholly doesn't win you a whole lot. the filing goes to great pains to express all the benefits that a student athlete is provided for being on the team. they did the work for you. plus these are only typically guaranteed for 1 year at a time.

1 year partial = $12,000.
roster spot? priceless. mastercard?

This $12k liability assumes the kid can afford that $12k, and can stay at the school. If the kid can't attend...that number gets a whole lot bigger.

And it also assumes that it's not a class action suit.....where $12k is x1,000's.

But you make an excellent point.

[nyjay]

So I guess the HS class of 2026 gets screwed by this? Right as the Covid restrictions finally roll off, the roster restrictions (and corresponding scholly increases) come around? The 2025 have already been recruited (and may get squeezed too by offers being pulled), but I assume a disproportionate amount of the roster cutting will come from incoming recruits (25s and 26s)? And upperclassman who don't play much. Given with the current transfer rules and it would seem that players 30+ on mid major rosters may be out of luck as well?

It’s not screwed when a system returns to normal conditions. A guy who syndicated and bought an apartment complex in late 2021 in Jacksonville isn’t screwed because the market he bought into was temporarily out of equilibrium and he overpaid.

There were a lot to kids who maybe shouldn’t have been in d1 rosters in then with the inflated rosters. This is just a return to normalcy.

Semantics - would clearly seem that there are now fewer recruiting opportunities for the '26s than they were before this change (and there will probably be some offers pulled on committed '25s), but if you think that doesn't rise to the level of "screwed", OK. In the end, I don't think a roster limitation at 48 is a big deal, but I do feel bad for the all of the kids who've had the world shift under their feet for the second time in four years.

I mean, the guy who bought an apartment complex in Jax CHOSE to do so. They kids have no control at all over the situation and just end up taking some downside.

[Farfromgeneva]

So I guess the HS class of 2026 gets screwed by this? Right as the Covid restrictions finally roll off, the roster restrictions (and corresponding scholly increases) come around? The 2025 have already been recruited (and may get squeezed too by offers being pulled), but I assume a disproportionate amount of the roster cutting will come from incoming recruits (25s and 26s)? And upperclassman who don't play much. Given with the current transfer rules and it would seem that players 30+ on mid major rosters may be out of luck as well?

It’s not screwed when a system returns to normal conditions. A guy who syndicated and bought an apartment complex in late 2021 in Jacksonville isn’t screwed because the market he bought into was temporarily out of equilibrium and he overpaid.

There were a lot to kids who maybe shouldn’t have been in d1 rosters in then with the inflated rosters. This is just a return to normalcy.

Semantics - would clearly seem that there are now fewer recruiting opportunities for the '26s than they were before this change (and there will probably be some offers pulled on committed '25s), but if you think that doesn't rise to the level of "screwed", OK. In the end, I don't think a roster limitation at 48 is a big deal, but I do feel bad for the all of the kids who've had the world shift under their feet for the second time in four years.

I mean, the guy who bought an apartment complex in Jax CHOSE to do so. They kids have no control at all over the situation and just end up taking some downside.

Welcome to the real world. I was 4yrs out of b school in MYC paying for my grad school debt hitting an inflection point when we hit the GFC wall and set me back 5-7yrs economically and ended up with me moving to a city I don’t even like and still live here because of kids.

Maybe we can find a collective bailout for the marginal roster spot kids who don’t get to tel folks they played D1 ball.

Nobody expected +500bps from
The Fed in a year. The bank regulators only make banks model their ALM to +400bps…. The world shifted under everyone’s feet with that.

[coda]

You are missing the part of sports, where rules are made to ensure fair play and safety. Does it make sense to allow Bama, Georgia, and Texas to have 200 football players and La Tech to have 50? There are differences in how sports and businesses are conducted

What do all professional sports have that College Sports don't?

Unions, and collective bargaining agreements. Without them, it's ILLEGAL to tell an American how much they can earn, or collude to fix the number of employees that you can have.

If fairness was paramount, and trumps free market principles? The NCAA should have capped how much everyone involved in sports earned. Problem solved. Why do we have NCAA coaches making ten+ times what a tenured professor earns, if the foundational ideas are amateurism, and educating students?

Everyone wanted to get paid, and didn't think on...or care about...the consequences. We are where we are because of greed.

Saying there are 80 spots per team is not limiting the free market. There are no jobs that are unlimited. The rest is babbling nonsense that isn’t part of the discussion

Well, A. don't bring up the word fairness next time, and B. read the SCOTUS decision because Kavanaugh indirectly addresses the concept of fairness.

And C. I'm trying to be polite. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

You're used to the old, illegal system. You have to understand the SCOTUS told the NCAA they can't collude to limit the free market....for labor, or anything else. Throw out your old way of thinking. It's dead.

Of course there all sorts of ways to execute a soft form of collision and businesses do it all the time. Just need these guys to get together and figure it out if they really want to.

Roster limit set by the NCAA is collusion. The NCAA can't limit the number of lacrosse players any more than they can limit the number of Physics Professors Hopkins hires.

From where I sit, this is where the first lawsuits will come: from kids that had scholarships last season, but don't this year because of roster size cuts.

This assumes there are players smart enough to sue, or parents who are smart enough to sue. How many kids won't be able to attend their schools because of lost scholarships from roster cuts?

I'd assume that class action suits are possible. We'll see. I've never understood why basketball and football players didn't unionize, so maybe students are too passive to sue.....

The ncaa has always just been an sro shield for the behaviors of 50 or
So college heads. It’s the college presidents and ads. My point is there’s workarounds if they want to. All sorts of collusion happens in soft forms all the time in business. Doesn’t have to be the ncaa can be a group of heads.

Oh, I agree. I guess all I'm saying is: how far do they want to push it, and chance that they'll get sued.

If I'm a kid at a school on even a partial scholarship, and get kicked off the team because of roster limits? I'm suing. No question.

Because unless they're stupid, the NCAA lawyers will do anything to keep from standing in front of Kavanaugh again....... where he'll say "what part of my ruling was unclear to you? This is America, and an outside entity can't cap the number of employees a business has. "

I'm just not all that sure that students or their parents either read, or understand the SCOTUS ruling.

being on partial scholarship shouldn't matter.

the roster limits for these sports are pretty high. i'm surprised as i wonder why they're even making them now. if some school wants to have 70 lax players, why would the nc$$ care? all of this to avoid darrell royal stories? it goes from looking like a cost cutting measure to i don't know what.

if they get sued and lose... ok, no roster limits. strategy for a bit would likely be figuring out the plaintiff's # and signing an nda.

There are multiple reasons. A lot of the rules the NCAA make need to consider lower levels. One reason helmet radios took so long to come to CFB. Arguments were made that lower schools could not afford the additional cost (not sure valid). Most sports try to make sure there is some kind of level playing field. Having unlimited rosters would completely destroy any notion of fair play and could result in greater injury risk for teams that can not afford more players. There is a reason that roster limits exist in virtually every sport. High school teams are separated by the size of the pool they draw from. It’s completely common. This isn’t even an NCAA issue. Most of their budget is from CBB tournament. Schools are the ones that want to control costs. Most athletic budgets are not fully funded. Without reasonable limits college sports are going to be negatively affected and we will see sports dropped. You may just be left with revenue sports eventually. And the opportunities even in those sports will be diminished, as super teams become the norm. The idea of unlimited rosters is one that only makes sense in text books and completely ignores the real world

[a fan]

There are multiple reasons. A lot of the rules the NCAA make need to consider lower levels. One reason helmet radios took so long to come to CFB. Arguments were made that lower schools could not afford the additional cost (not sure valid). Most sports try to make sure there is some kind of level playing field. Having unlimited rosters would completely destroy any notion of fair play and could result in greater injury risk for teams that can not afford more players. There is a reason that roster limits exist in virtually every sport. High school teams are separated by the size of the pool they draw from. It’s completely common. This isn’t even an NCAA issue. Most of their budget is from CBB tournament. Schools are the ones that want to control costs. Most athletic budgets are not fully funded. Without reasonable limits college sports are going to be negatively affected and we will see sports dropped.

Yep. Agree completely.

You may just be left with revenue sports eventually. And the opportunities even in those sports will be diminished, as super teams become the norm.

Yep. Agree. College sports are in peril, and greedy middlemen put them in this peril.

The idea of unlimited rosters is one that only makes sense in text books and completely ignores the real world

Or in the free labor market. Is your place of business capped in the number of employees that it's allowed to have? No, right?

From Justice Kavanaugh in NCAA v. Alston:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

And again......

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.


The only thing that's allowing the NCAA to put these current roster limits in place is: they haven't been sued yet. That's it. And if someone sues, the NCAA will LOSE. All it takes is one kid, and it's bye-bye roster limits.

And yes, it's possible no one will sue. The NCAA is trying to keep the collusion party going for as long as they can, while not working helping the students to Unionize, so that a collective bargaining agreement can be put in place. And that is where your roster limits will come from...that collective agreement.

We're years away from that, imho.

[Farfromgeneva]

There are multiple reasons. A lot of the rules the NCAA make need to consider lower levels. One reason helmet radios took so long to come to CFB. Arguments were made that lower schools could not afford the additional cost (not sure valid). Most sports try to make sure there is some kind of level playing field. Having unlimited rosters would completely destroy any notion of fair play and could result in greater injury risk for teams that can not afford more players. There is a reason that roster limits exist in virtually every sport. High school teams are separated by the size of the pool they draw from. It’s completely common. This isn’t even an NCAA issue. Most of their budget is from CBB tournament. Schools are the ones that want to control costs. Most athletic budgets are not fully funded. Without reasonable limits college sports are going to be negatively affected and we will see sports dropped.

Yep. Agree completely.

You may just be left with revenue sports eventually. And the opportunities even in those sports will be diminished, as super teams become the norm.

Yep. Agree. College sports are in peril, and greedy middlemen put them in this peril.

The idea of unlimited rosters is one that only makes sense in text books and completely ignores the real world

Or in the free labor market. Is your place of business capped in the number of employees that it's allowed to have? No, right?

From Justice Kavanaugh in NCAA v. Alston:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

And again......

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.


The only thing that's allowing the NCAA to put these current roster limits in place is: they haven't been sued yet. That's it. And if someone sues, the NCAA will LOSE. All it takes is one kid, and it's bye-bye roster limits.

And yes, it's possible no one will sue. The NCAA is trying to keep the collusion party going for as long as they can, while not working helping the students to Unionize, so that a collective bargaining agreement can be put in place. And that is where your roster limits will come from...that collective agreement.

We're years away from that, imho.

And yet live nation colludes every day and price fixes at their venues like a mfer.

[coda]

There are multiple reasons. A lot of the rules the NCAA make need to consider lower levels. One reason helmet radios took so long to come to CFB. Arguments were made that lower schools could not afford the additional cost (not sure valid). Most sports try to make sure there is some kind of level playing field. Having unlimited rosters would completely destroy any notion of fair play and could result in greater injury risk for teams that can not afford more players. There is a reason that roster limits exist in virtually every sport. High school teams are separated by the size of the pool they draw from. It’s completely common. This isn’t even an NCAA issue. Most of their budget is from CBB tournament. Schools are the ones that want to control costs. Most athletic budgets are not fully funded. Without reasonable limits college sports are going to be negatively affected and we will see sports dropped.

Yep. Agree completely.

You may just be left with revenue sports eventually. And the opportunities even in those sports will be diminished, as super teams become the norm.

Yep. Agree. College sports are in peril, and greedy middlemen put them in this peril.

The idea of unlimited rosters is one that only makes sense in text books and completely ignores the real world

Or in the free labor market. Is your place of business capped in the number of employees that it's allowed to have? No, right?

From Justice Kavanaugh in NCAA v. Alston:

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

And again......

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.


The only thing that's allowing the NCAA to put these current roster limits in place is: they haven't been sued yet. That's it. And if someone sues, the NCAA will LOSE. All it takes is one kid, and it's bye-bye roster limits.

And yes, it's possible no one will sue. The NCAA is trying to keep the collusion party going for as long as they can, while not working helping the students to Unionize, so that a collective bargaining agreement can be put in place. And that is where your roster limits will come from...that collective agreement.

We're years away from that, imho.

There is a difference. You are applying business to college sports. Take lacrosse. There are players in college lacrosse that make more than professionals. The teams they are on lose money. How does one determine “fair market value” of a sport with limited economic value? Players make more, than their teams make. In the business world that would work itself out in bankruptcy court. I only see him speaking on colluding to pay less or limiting benefits of a job. That is different than arguing he is saying that you can never cap the amount of cooks or nurses, which restaurants and hospitals do.

[a fan]

There is a difference. You are applying business to college sports.

You're confused. I"m not the one applying business to college sports......it's the Supreme Court of the United States that's doing that.

You're arguing with the SCOTUS, not with me. It's becoming increasingly clear that you want to have an opinion on the matter without bothering to read the NCAA v Alston decision in full.

Go read that. Then tell me what you think that Justice Kavanaugh told the NCAA that they cannot do.

I only see him speaking on colluding to pay less or limiting benefits of a job. That is different than arguing he is saying that you can never cap the amount of cooks or nurses, which restaurants and hospitals do.

Do you REALLY think that the decision means that only SOME free market principles apply to the NCAA? Kavanaugh was clear as day: he told them that ALL free market principles are in play. And obviously that includes the notion that the NCAA can't limit roster spots any more than they can limit (again) the number of physicists Hopkins hires.

All you have to do to understand the NCAA ruling is to look at a non-sports student, and apply the EXACT same rules to NCAA-governed student athletes.

So picture an engineering student at Hopkins.

-can that student work any job they want? Yep.
-can that student take a job that pays $1,000,000 per annum? Yep
-can that student get a job as an actor in a commerical? Yep. Does that student have to report this job to someone? F no.
-does the NCAA cap how many engineering students are allowed at Hopkins? Nope.

And on and on. That's the law is right now. Today.

And until a Union is started, and a collective bargain is struck....all the arguing in the world won't change this situation. The SCOTUS has spoken.

And yup, the NCAA can try and apply any rules they want. But if ONE kid sues, the jig is up, and if they show up at the SCOTUS, having ignored the Court's order? The NCAA is cooked.

Personally, I think the odds that the NCAA survives this mess is very, very low. What do they offer schools that Conferences can't do themselves? And these Conferences' lawyers will respect the NCAA ruling.

Just my opinion.

[a fan]

And yet live nation colludes every day and price fixes at their venues like a mfer.

Yep. But that's likely over, too. Justice Dept. et. al. just sued them this May.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- ... ross%20the

[Farfromgeneva]

And yet live nation colludes every day and price fixes at their venues like a mfer.

Yep. But that's likely over, too. Justice Dept. et. al. just sued them this May.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- ... ross%20the

Ten years too late it it happened all over the place and while politically oriented comment you know antitrust won’t be the same next admin. I
Once financed that company pre GFC so have always followed their bs over the years.

[coda]

There is a difference. You are applying business to college sports.

You're confused. I"m not the one applying business to college sports......it's the Supreme Court of the United States that's doing that.

You're arguing with the SCOTUS, not with me. It's becoming increasingly clear that you want to have an opinion on the matter without bothering to read the NCAA v Alston decision in full.

Go read that. Then tell me what you think that Justice Kavanaugh told the NCAA that they cannot do.

I only see him speaking on colluding to pay less or limiting benefits of a job. That is different than arguing he is saying that you can never cap the amount of cooks or nurses, which restaurants and hospitals do.

Do you REALLY think that the decision means that only SOME free market principles apply to the NCAA? Kavanaugh was clear as day: he told them that ALL free market principles are in play. And obviously that includes the notion that the NCAA can't limit roster spots any more than they can limit (again) the number of physicists Hopkins hires.

All you have to do to understand the NCAA ruling is to look at a non-sports student, and apply the EXACT same rules to NCAA-governed student athletes.

So picture an engineering student at Hopkins.

-can that student work any job they want? Yep.
-can that student take a job that pays $1,000,000 per annum? Yep
-can that student get a job as an actor in a commerical? Yep. Does that student have to report this job to someone? F no.
-does the NCAA cap how many engineering students are allowed at Hopkins? Nope.

And on and on. That's the law is right now. Today.

And until a Union is started, and a collective bargain is struck....all the arguing in the world won't change this situation. The SCOTUS has spoken.

And yup, the NCAA can try and apply any rules they want. But if ONE kid sues, the jig is up, and if they show up at the SCOTUS, having ignored the Court's order? The NCAA is cooked.

Personally, I think the odds that the NCAA survives this mess is very, very low. What do they offer schools that Conferences can't do themselves? And these Conferences' lawyers will respect the NCAA ruling.

Just my opinion.

Let’s take your argument and apply it to all aspects of college. You are saying it is unlawful to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids. Why is it legal for them to limit the engineering spots or academic scholarships?

[a fan]

Let’s take your argument and apply it to all aspects of college. You are saying it is unlawful to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids. Why is it legal for them to limit the engineering spots?

Again, it's not my argument. It's the SCOTUS' decision.

But to answer your question, your'e confusing what Hopkins can do, with what the NCAA can do.

Again: can the NCAA limit the number of engineering spots Hopkins grants? Yes or no?


The SCOTUS is saying it is unlawful for the NCAA to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids.

[coda]

Let’s take your argument and apply it to all aspects of college. You are saying it is unlawful to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids. Why is it legal for them to limit the engineering spots?

Again, it's not my argument. It's the SCOTUS' decision.

But to answer your question, your'e confusing what Hopkins can do, with what the NCAA can do.

Again: can the NCAA limit the number of engineering spots Hopkins grants? Yes or no?


The SCOTUS is saying it is unlawful for the NCAA to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids.

I think you are applying colluding to limit pay and benefits with arguing for unlimited opportunity. There is a difference, especially in sports, where every team is bound by the same on-field participation parameters. There isn’t roster limits, there are limits on the amount of participants that can receive scholarships. As there are limits to amount of players that can be eligible for participation in conference games based on home and away. I do not believe a judge would rule for unlimited opportunities. Judges have and would make rulings on limiting benefits. I guess we will find out, if someone ever files that case.

[a fan]

Let’s take your argument and apply it to all aspects of college. You are saying it is unlawful to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids. Why is it legal for them to limit the engineering spots?

Again, it's not my argument. It's the SCOTUS' decision.

But to answer your question, your'e confusing what Hopkins can do, with what the NCAA can do.

Again: can the NCAA limit the number of engineering spots Hopkins grants? Yes or no?


The SCOTUS is saying it is unlawful for the NCAA to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids.

I do not believe a judge would rule for unlimited opportunities

They have for every other business and business sector in America. And Kavanaugh told the NCAA directly: you are just like any other business in America, you can't operate a cartel to protect your profits and stifle competition.

From where I sit, It's pretty crazy how Americans have gotten so used to monopolies that they don't notice them anymore.

In the end, you are right: the NCAA is clearly and plainly trying to keep stuffing their pockets with money as long as they can.....knowing a Union will arrive, and will negotiate a far better deal than the NCAA is offering. The NCAA is acting like they're being beneficent, and are doing kids a solid.

Wait til they have to deal at a negotiating table with a strong Union, with the SCOTUS holding their feet to the fire. I doubt this will end well for them. Conferences will take over, imho. Fewer mouths for the schools to feed.

[coda]

Let’s take your argument and apply it to all aspects of college. You are saying it is unlawful to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids. Why is it legal for them to limit the engineering spots?

Again, it's not my argument. It's the SCOTUS' decision.

But to answer your question, your'e confusing what Hopkins can do, with what the NCAA can do.

Again: can the NCAA limit the number of engineering spots Hopkins grants? Yes or no?


The SCOTUS is saying it is unlawful for the NCAA to limit the lacrosse opportunities to 50 kids.

I do not believe a judge would rule for unlimited opportunities

They have for every other business and business sector in America. And Kavanaugh told the NCAA directly: you are just like any other business in America, you can't operate a cartel to protect your profits and stifle competition.

From where I sit, It's pretty crazy how Americans have gotten so used to monopolies that they don't notice them anymore.

In the end, you are right: the NCAA is clearly and plainly trying to keep stuffing their pockets with money as long as they can.....knowing a Union will arrive, and will negotiate a far better deal than the NCAA is offering. The NCAA is acting like they're being beneficent, and are doing kids a solid.

Wait til they have to deal at a negotiating table with a strong Union, with the SCOTUS holding their feet to the fire. I doubt this will end well for them. Conferences will take over, imho. Fewer mouths for the schools to feed.

NCAA is a pawn in this. They are being pushed aside. Conferences are negotiating the settlement. This argument really doesn’t matter, because roster limits are going to be part of the up coming settlement. That is something that has been reported extensively. We will see if someone challenges that. If the judge doesn’t allow it, I will admit I was wrong

[a fan]

If the judge doesn’t allow it, I will admit I was wrong

Even if a judge allows it, that doesn't mean someone with standing can't sue.

All I'm reporting to you is all there for you to read in the ruling.

The Conferences will have to negotiate with a players union if they want to collude. To use your words: just as it is for every other professional sports league.