Tennessee preparing for the future with salaries for athletes.

#126
#126
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
You still don't address that the organization practices, the rules it makes for the schools, are being declared violations of Antitrust and the organization is abandoning those rules.

So, when the rule against paying players market value is declared an Antitrust Violation, the schools will need to start paying players market value or risk their own lawsuits, which they'll lose also.

At that point, you have pro football. Athletes playing ball, being paid, and STILL you need an organization to ride herd, enforce a salary cap, control free agency, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
The ruling requires athletes to be able to professionally earn money for their marketability, while STILL participating in an amateur sport. Zero allowable dollars was easier to enforce, then they pivoted to only allow it to be earned AFTER entry to the schools, and now they will have to attempt to mitigate the POTENTIAL of PAY FOR PLAY being masked in the legal payments for their protected NIL value.

Most likely solution seems to be creating a new Division within the organizaion where unlimited NIL dollars for each player is allowed, but each school will have a cap, with each lower division having decreasing limits for what each player can earn. Completely in line with the different roster size, scholly limit, and travel squad restrictions used to maintain competitive balance to date. There will have to be enough slots available to insure that no player is prohibited from having available spots ON SOME TEAM within the organization to absorb their individual value. I suspect they will ease the pain by allowing SOME NIL earnings for EVERY level including those that do not even give scholarships. Not too worried about the T-shirt, restaurant and mattress deals impacting competitive balance and for sure they should have to ability to deal with earnings like every other student.

The SCOTUS did not in anyway guarantee a player the right to these earnings while participating at their school of CHOICE, just the opportunity cannot be denied them within the NCAA. Nor did it define a reasonable standard for the timing of declaration of the amounts of money relative to the competitive season or signing days. With the portal firmly in place a player will have an ability to find a new home if the school elects to not extend his scholly to remain within the NIL cap, anymore than meeting the scholly cap today. See the PRIME decision path on those numbers at Colorado. A few more court cases on the way to refine whatever the NCAA path turns out to be. It is possible a high profile player with an NIL deal in hand would be rejected by a school due to legal issues or other team related factors. The decision for sure did not protect the individual schools or the collectives from having their plans altered by the addition of NIL caps throughout the membership of the NCAA, JUST the students. Our court case basically fought the NCAA trying to penalize schools for recruiting students while THEY were establishing THEIR value to those forces outside the school prior to their entry into school.
 
#127
#127
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
That's where the danger is in players becoming paid employees of the university.

Think about age discrimination laws. Why SHOULD an employee be limited to 4 years or have to attend school? Certainly, elite players can make more in the NFL, but guys not quite NFL level, but not bad at the "college" level or aging guys who can't quite cut the NFL anymore, why can't a team hire them even if they're 30?

Voluntarily bringing compensation into the schools is a HUGE mistake. Make the courts declare the players employees and delay it as long as possible because there's likely no way to enforce "eligibility" for employees.
Click to expand...

I don’t think there’s an age limit now, so age discrimination is not applicable. It’s a term limit. Term limits and job requirements (including continuing education requirements) can be part of an employment contract. And as mentioned above, there are plenty of examples in colleges, government and private business.
 
#128
#128
butchna said:
That’s not going to happen…etc. etc. etc The NCAA “riding herd” is finished. Conferences will self-regulate with a basic set of manageable rules. The Supreme Court doesn’t descend from the heavens and unilaterally declare this is against anti-trust rules and that isn’t. There has to be cases presented to them for interpretation…and what exactly is on the docket? Kids right out of high school will take the money available and move on after 3-5 years. Free market! Has worked for centuries.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It could never happen. 🤦‍♂️

www.latimes.com

National Labor Relations Board files complaint against USC, Pac-12 and NCAA

The National Labor Relations Board accuses USC, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA of classifying employees as "student athlete" in a complaint.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
 
#130
#130
GUNTERSVOL said:
The ruling requires athletes to be able to professionally earn money for their marketability, while STILL participating in an amateur sport. Zero allowable dollars was easier to enforce, then they pivoted to only allow it to be earned AFTER entry to the schools, and now they will have to attempt to mitigate the POTENTIAL of PAY FOR PLAY being masked in the legal payments for their protected NIL value.

Most likely solution seems to be creating a new Division within the organizaion where unlimited NIL dollars for each player is allowed, but each school will have a cap, with each lower division having decreasing limits for what each player can earn. Completely in line with the different roster size, scholly limit, and travel squad restrictions used to maintain competitive balance to date. There will have to be enough slots available to insure that no player is prohibited from having available spots ON SOME TEAM within the organization to absorb their individual value. I suspect they will ease the pain by allowing SOME NIL earnings for EVERY level including those that do not even give scholarships. Not too worried about the T-shirt, restaurant and mattress deals impacting competitive balance and for sure they should have to ability to deal with earnings like every other student.

The SCOTUS did not in anyway guarantee a player the right to these earnings while participating at their school of CHOICE, just the opportunity cannot be denied them within the NCAA. Nor did it define a reasonable standard for the timing of declaration of the amounts of money relative to the competitive season or signing days. With the portal firmly in place a player will have an ability to find a new home if the school elects to not extend his scholly to remain within the NIL cap, anymore than meeting the scholly cap today. See the PRIME decision path on those numbers at Colorado. A few more court cases on the way to refine whatever the NCAA path turns out to be. It is possible a high profile player with an NIL deal in hand would be rejected by a school due to legal issues or other team related factors. The decision for sure did not protect the individual schools or the collectives from having their plans altered by the addition of NIL caps throughout the membership of the NCAA, JUST the students. Our court case basically fought the NCAA trying to penalize schools for recruiting students while THEY were establishing THEIR value to those forces outside the school prior to their entry into school.
Click to expand...
I've been patient with you, but I'm done.

In case you haven't noticed, VA and TN are likely winning a case against the NCAA about regulating NIL. The NCAA has currently backed way, way, WAY off regulating what schools can do via NIL.

Just stop. The court cases show the NCAA is LOSING control of NIL, as they should because it isn't theirs to regulate, while you continue to look like a fool saying "they'll cap NIL at the school level." Just stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirtyhairies
#131
#131
DuckinVol said:
I don’t think there’s an age limit now, so age discrimination is not applicable. It’s a term limit. Term limits and job requirements (including continuing education requirements) can be part of an employment contract. And as mentioned above, there are plenty of examples in colleges, government and private business.
Click to expand...
The NCAA has an age limit. Once you turn i believe it 23 or 24 you automatically lose a year of eligibility for each year after, unless you are in the military.
 
#132
#132
DuckinVol said:
I don’t think there’s an age limit now, so age discrimination is not applicable. It’s a term limit. Term limits and job requirements (including continuing education requirements) can be part of an employment contract. And as mentioned above, there are plenty of examples in colleges, government and private business.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, if they make students employees, like the pro leagues, they can establish limits.

If they are employees. That's the point. It'll be hard to make them athlete employees AND force them to go to college to study something other than what you hired them to do.

How much control SHOULD an employer have?
 
#134
#134
butchna said:
It's part of the conversation as long as you insist it's the same entity as member schools. Tails wagging dogs and dogs being rescued analogy.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, let alone insist it. Get help for the illiteracy, the logical fallacies, or both.
 
#135
#135
#137
#137
butchna said:
Oh...we're time travelling! Whatever became of that? 😄
Click to expand...
The case is still active. The Dartmouth case was held already and ruled "players were employees."

The USC case has larger implications and remains active.

www.ocregister.com

How the NLRB’s case against USC and the NCAA could fix college-athlete compensation

The National Labor Relations Board’s fight to reclassify student-athletes as employees could radically change the murky waters of NIL disputes and infractions
www.ocregister.com www.ocregister.com
 
#138
#138
GUNTERSVOL said:
The ruling requires athletes to be able to professionally earn money for their marketability, while STILL participating in an amateur sport. Zero allowable dollars was easier to enforce, then they pivoted to only allow it to be earned AFTER entry to the schools, and now they will have to attempt to mitigate the POTENTIAL of PAY FOR PLAY being masked in the legal payments for their protected NIL value.

Most likely solution seems to be creating a new Division within the organizaion where unlimited NIL dollars for each player is allowed, but each school will have a cap, with each lower division having decreasing limits for what each player can earn. Completely in line with the different roster size, scholly limit, and travel squad restrictions used to maintain competitive balance to date. There will have to be enough slots available to insure that no player is prohibited from having available spots ON SOME TEAM within the organization to absorb their individual value. I suspect they will ease the pain by allowing SOME NIL earnings for EVERY level including those that do not even give scholarships. Not too worried about the T-shirt, restaurant and mattress deals impacting competitive balance and for sure they should have to ability to deal with earnings like every other student.

The SCOTUS did not in anyway guarantee a player the right to these earnings while participating at their school of CHOICE, just the opportunity cannot be denied them within the NCAA. Nor did it define a reasonable standard for the timing of declaration of the amounts of money relative to the competitive season or signing days. With the portal firmly in place a player will have an ability to find a new home if the school elects to not extend his scholly to remain within the NIL cap, anymore than meeting the scholly cap today. See the PRIME decision path on those numbers at Colorado. A few more court cases on the way to refine whatever the NCAA path turns out to be. It is possible a high profile player with an NIL deal in hand would be rejected by a school due to legal issues or other team related factors. The decision for sure did not protect the individual schools or the collectives from having their plans altered by the addition of NIL caps throughout the membership of the NCAA, JUST the students. Our court case basically fought the NCAA trying to penalize schools for recruiting students while THEY were establishing THEIR value to those forces outside the school prior to their entry into school.
Click to expand...
You are still advocating that illegal cap?
Give it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirtyhairies
#140
#140
S.C. OrangeMan said:
You are FOS. Enjoy your Sunday horse and buggy ride. Don't let Henry Ford's Model T make you feel to anachronistic.
Click to expand...
Looking up words and going in a circle. You gotta be getting dizzy by now. Stop before you spew all over yourself. 🤢
 
Last edited:
#141
#141
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
The case is still active. The Dartmouth case was held already and ruled "players were employees."

The USC case has larger implications and remains active.

www.ocregister.com

How the NLRB’s case against USC and the NCAA could fix college-athlete compensation

The National Labor Relations Board’s fight to reclassify student-athletes as employees could radically change the murky waters of NIL disputes and infractions
www.ocregister.com www.ocregister.com
Click to expand...
The way of the PAC 12 players union talks before COVID. Fell apart because you can’t get a group of kids on the same page when it’s not sports...and now the PAC 12 is a shadow. LA greasy mafia union stuff doesn’t play in the Midwest. Each of them making their own money ups the impossibility. “Implications” butt! It’s background noise.
 
#143
#143
butchna said:
The way of the PAC 12 players union talks before COVID. Fell apart because you can’t get a group of kids on the same page when it’s not sports...and now the PAC 12 is a shadow. LA greasy mafia union stuff doesn’t play in the Midwest. Each of them making their own money ups the impossibility. “Implications” butt! It’s background noise.
Click to expand...
That's not what Donde Plowman seems to think. Her letter saying "The NCAA is failing" is pretty much on point.

The NEXT organization which the schools form is going to need to address these issues before it forms. Without an Antitrust Exemption, per Justice Kavanaugh, "the NCAA's business model cannot withstand scrutiny under Sherman."

The student-athlete model won't work legally in the next organization and it's being sued and losing from every direction in the NCAA.

NIL money? Lost. NIL regulation? Losing. Transfer regulation? Losing. Employee status? Lost at Dartmouth and probably losing at USC.

Your insistence that "it can't happen" while we see the NCAA continually losing regulatory power via Antitrust cases just isn't reality.
 
#146
#146
volfan102455 said:
With a salary comes requirements that your employer expects you to meet. Also performance reviews which dictates if you get a raise or even get to stay employed.
Click to expand...
Players get cut or benched at every level of sports. It's all about performance and fitting in what the coach wants and needs.

Nothing earthshaking there. Players have been recruited over and replaced, "encouraged" to look at other opportunities for themselves, in college for decades.
 
#147
#147
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Given your reliance on logical fallacies, it is unsurprising that you need to look up common terms as well.
Click to expand...
“Logical fallacies” in a mantra and the women who love them…on the next Geraldo. 😴
 
#148
#148
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
That's not what Donde Plowman seems to think. Her letter saying "The NCAA is failing" is pretty much on point.

The NEXT organization which the schools form is going to need to address these issues before it forms. Without an Antitrust Exemption, per Justice Kavanaugh, "the NCAA's business model cannot withstand scrutiny under Sherman."

The student-athlete model won't work legally in the next organization and it's being sued and losing from every direction in the NCAA.

NIL money? Lost. NIL regulation? Losing. Transfer regulation? Losing. Employee status? Lost at Dartmouth and probably losing at USC.

Your insistence that "it can't happen" while we see the NCAA continually losing regulatory power via Antitrust cases just isn't reality.
Click to expand...
NCAA HAS been failing dating way back. They’re not the universities they have been trying to control. Not sure you know exactly what you’re arguing. Universities own the STAGE. Business has to be conducted on their model. No court is going to force them to become something different.
 
#149
#149
butchna said:
NCAA HAS been failing dating way back. They’re not the universities they have been trying to control. Not sure you know exactly what you’re arguing. Universities own the STAGE. Business has to be conducted on their model. No court is going to force them to become something different.
Click to expand...
Interesting opinion.

Didn't the courts basically tell the schools how they needed to organize and offer their STAGE via Title IX and such?

But go on. Please. The courts can't possibly tell schools how sports must be presented.
 
#150
#150
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Interesting opinion.

Didn't the courts basically tell the schools how they needed to organize and offer their STAGE via Title IX and such?

But go on. Please. The courts can't possibly tell schools how sports must be presented.
Click to expand...
Did they? Anything I can read?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top