The SDMB NCAA thread

And you can’t pay your head coach any more than you do a professor. Hell, your head coach has to be a professor teaching classes while he coaches.

If you want to laud your “student athletes” then at least as many of them must graduate as graduate from the university as a whole (as a percent of matriculation). If you don’t meet that standard your team loses any tournament/bowl eligibility until they do.

You would end up back in the halcyon days when only students and alumni really followed their team, and the pure student athlete fought for the pride of the alma mater. For some reason I don’t think that’s exactly what the NCAA has in mind, however…

I thought this was a really good post summing up the Court arguments. The only thing I mildly disagree with is that this is a “complicated issue.” It’s not to me. The schools are engaging in un-American monopolistic economic practices and they must stop.

And it won’t be complicated to stop doing them, either. We don’t have to figure out what the backup tackle is gonna make or how much we have to give women’s sports; just remove the restrictions against earnings and the fucking schools will figure this out on their own just like every other business entity in the country does.

**Title IX complicates things a little but only a little. Just keep providing those opportunities.

I tend to agree with you that the general principles aren’t that complicated. At least, not for me.

But there are some complicated legal issues related to the case as it currently stands, partly because how the “rule of reason” works in anti-trust cases, and partly because of the way that the lower court rulings were worded. A key question here is whether the Supreme Court is going to get into the business of regulating what types of compensation athletes can receive, and how much, or whether they’re going to make a more sweeping ruling. there are legal scholars who argue that courts should not be in the business of acting as de facto regulators, setting specific dollar amounts or specific types of compensation, but that’s sort of what the lower courts tried to do here.

The SC might end up not having a big say in this issue if states keep passing their own NIL legislations. New Mexico passed its bill this week and my own Maryland legislature sent a bill to Larry Hogan today for his signature. He may as well sign it, too, because the Senate easily has the votes to override a veto.

Right, and as more states pass such legislation, it’s likely to snowball, because colleges in those states will have a significant competitive advantage in recruiting players, compared to colleges in states that don’t pass NIL laws.

Meanwhile, the NCAA has made (reportedly - it may not be “officially” announced until 4/15) a move that will benefit top-level athletes: the one year sit-out rule for football and basketball (and baseball, and men’s ice hockey) for undergraduate transfers has been removed, and football players who transfer by July 1 will be able to play next season for their new schools. This was supposed to be voted on at January’s NCAA Convention, but was pulled at the last minute along with the NIL proposals.

This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise, considering the number of football and men’s basketball players that have entered the transfer portal recently.

Alabama passed its NIL legislation this week. Much like the federal government lagging behind the states in marijuana legislation, it’s time for the NCAA to wave the white flag. The walls are crumbling around it.