NCAA Amateurism to Go Back Under Courtroom Spotlight in Jenkins Trial

[cutchemist42]

NCAA amateurism, scholarship rules to go on trial

Could be an interesting one to keep tabs over the next few months.

The Jenkins case and its associated litigations, including Shawne Alston v. NCAA, utilize the O’Bannon ruling to advance a related, but distinct antitrust theory: the NCAA and its members have unlawfully conspired to suppress the monetary value of athletic scholarships. As noted above, NCAA rules limit the value of athletic scholarships to reimbursement for tuition, room, board, fees and course-related books.

Click to read more...

 

[mouser]

Removed the OT tag. It’s absolutely a BoH relevant topic.

Curious to see how this shapes out. Notable that this suit like the others mentioned in the article are all in the 9th district.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

NCAA amateurism, scholarship rules to go on trial

Could be an interesting one to keep tabs over the next few months.

it's all a load of crap to me.

i like how these lawsuits always leave out the other perks these athletes get, like:

private dorms far nicer than the general ones
fully paid for food
fully paid for travel accomodations
top flight strength and training facilities

They also dont realize the tax implications they are opening themselves up to if they are paid as employees. They could face having to pay a portion of the cost of gym time, training, travel.

Also things like room and board/tuition/free books are all taxed as income at their $ value same as any other employer funded benefit.

The top 1% of athletes will come out ahead, but the remaining 99% across all sports will not.

edit: just realized the Title 9 implications...schools will have to pay their male and female athletes on a similar scale...so unless they pay big money to the girls, the top level male recruits wont be raking in the big bucks they think they will

 

[93LEAFS]

it's all a load of crap to me.

i like how these lawsuits always leave out the other perks these athletes get, like:

private dorms far nicer than the general ones
fully paid for food
fully paid for travel accomodations
top flight strength and training facilities

They also dont realize the tax implications they are opening themselves up to if they are paid as employees. They could face having to pay a portion of the cost of gym time, training, travel.

Also things like room and board/tuition/free books are all taxed as income at their $ value same as any other employer funded benefit.

The top 1% of athletes will come out ahead, but the remaining 99% across all sports will not.

edit: just realized the Title 9 implications...schools will have to pay their male and female athletes on a similar scale...so unless they pay big money to the girls, the top level male recruits wont be raking in the big bucks they think they will

I've always thought the title IX implications were by far the biggest hinderence. It could theoretically kill many female basketball programs.

 

[snovalleyhockeyfan]

I've always thought the title IX implications were by far the biggest hinderence. It could theoretically kill many female basketball programs.

And a lot of other women's sports programs. "Non-revenue" sports such as softball, gymnastics, soccer, etc., etc.

 

[Fugu]

For me this comes down to a question of ethics or justice. It seems the NCAA is happy to make a ton of money off the most popular programs, mainly men's football and basketball. TV money is in the billions of dollars. In that sense, the male athletes are not getting their fair share - in spite of getting lots of free things. However, it does bolster the not-so-popular sports for men and women. That's like the communist approach to making sure everyone gets something. It also gives a bonus to athletes vs academic-only students, which is simply wrong.

I'm definitely someone who does NOT believe that universities should be in these sports businesses, and the situation above outlines why I think that's the case. You get alumni donating money to the athletic departments, not the academic sections that probably could benefit from all those millions in academic ways.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

For me this comes down to a question of ethics or justice. It seems the NCAA is happy to make a ton of money off the most popular programs, mainly men's football and basketball. TV money is in the billions of dollars. In that sense, the male athletes are not getting their fair share - in spite of getting lots of free things. However, it does bolster the not-so-popular sports for men and women. That's like the communist approach to making sure everyone gets something. It also gives a bonus to athletes vs academic-only students, which is simply wrong.

I'm definitely someone who does NOT believe that universities should be in these sports businesses, and the situation above outlines why I think that's the case. You get alumni donating money to the athletic departments, not the academic sections that probably could benefit from all those millions in academic ways.

academics gets just as much alumni money as sports does. Its just that no one cares enough to make it newsworthy, nevermind being a topic on all the 24/7 sports sources like ESPN, SI, etc

All of these massive endowments that colleges have are fed by alumni contributions and donations.

for example...in 2016 LSU was the only SEC school to have more donations to athletics than academics. That includes powerhouses like Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky

 

[Fugu]

academics gets just as much alumni money as sports does. Its just that no one cares enough to make it newsworthy, nevermind being a topic on all the 24/7 sports sources like ESPN, SI, etc

All of these massive endowments that colleges have are fed by alumni contributions and donations.

for example...in 2016 LSU was the only SEC school to have more donations to athletics than academics. That includes powerhouses like Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky

I'm not sure that we can debate the totals in quite the way you bring it up here, but do consider that all these SCHOOLS (sorry to capitalize it) are there to help the states' or nations' citizens ACADEMICALLY. Not the rest of the world, though it is good to get some diversity too. You don't subsidize them because they're good at sports. The NBA and NFL certainly have more than enough money to run farm systems.

The schools aren't there to further a professor's publication list either. The schools were created to help young people achieve better lives. I cringe when I consider how much we were paying for my tuition a few decades ago vs what we paid for my kids (now done, thankfully). And the more successful you are, the less money you get back. State schools don't help you at all, beyond a token $1000 or something. Private schools help the poor and diverse crowd, but anyone at middle and upper levels isn't going to get much -- even if my definition of what constitutes middle and upper incomes is very different from the government and schools. The University of Washington at least recently lowered tuition for all the state schools. They realized it was getting beyond ridiculous.

Much of the federal funding is granted to professors, who have to write grants for research funding, so yes, some schools like U of Michigan and U of Washington top this list, but it mostly goes to grad programs and perhaps senior level undergrad research. It doesn't help undergrad tuition, nor book costs, nor food or housing, etc.

So as a parent, would you be happy to know that you have to spend $60-70K per year on college costs, or let each child borrow $30-40K for expenses while the "athletes" get a free ride for everything while having (in many cases) not the academic standing to even be there?

I don't mind sports businesses, but I heartily disagree that universities should be running them. $6 MM in salary to a football or basketball coach? Seriously!

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm not sure that we can debate the totals in quite the way you bring it up here, but do consider that all these SCHOOLS (sorry to capitalize it) are there to help the states' or nations' citizens ACADEMICALLY. Not the rest of the world, though it is good to get some diversity too. You don't subsidize them because they're good at sports. The NBA and NFL certainly have more than enough money to run farm systems.

The schools aren't there to further a professor's publication list either. The schools were created to help young people achieve better lives. I cringe when I consider how much we were paying for my tuition a few decades ago vs what we paid for my kids (now done, thankfully). And the more successful you are, the less money you get back. State schools don't help you at all, beyond a token $1000 or something. Private schools help the poor and diverse crowd, but anyone at middle and upper levels isn't going to get much -- even if my definition of what constitutes middle and upper incomes is very different from the government and schools. The University of Washington at least recently lowered tuition for all the state schools. They realized it was getting beyond ridiculous.

Much of the federal funding is granted to professors, who have to write grants for research funding, so yes, some schools like U of Michigan and U of Washington top this list, but it mostly goes to grad programs and perhaps senior level undergrad research. It doesn't help undergrad tuition, nor book costs, nor food or housing, etc.

So as a parent, would you be happy to know that you have to spend $60-70K per year on college costs, or let each child borrow $30-40K for expenses while the "athletes" get a free ride for everything while having (in many cases) not the academic standing to even be there?

I don't mind sports businesses, but I heartily disagree that universities should be running them. $6 MM in salary to a football or basketball coach? Seriously!

problem is you're only looking at 1 half of the equation. The money brought in by athletics far outweighs the cost and is a large net positive financially for the schools. Hell, without athletics you'd be paying more for tuition.

Also athletic scholarships existed before the NCAA money grab and are for all sports, not just football/basketball.

how much is tuition lowered by the money athletics brings in? For programs like Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, you are talking about 100s of millions per school per year.

Hell, in 2017 Alabama had athletics revenue of $174 million ($108 million from football alone). Texas had $214 million and Texas A&M had $212 million in revenue in 2017.

To your tuition point, dont confuse private with public colleges. You aren't hitting $60k at any public university. Alabama's instate tuition is $10k, Texas is $9k.

Private Universities will charge much higher tuitions regardless of athletics cost. They do so for exclusivity and because they can. Harvard costing $63k a year, Northwestern costing $50k a year and MIT costing $50k are because they are Harvard, Northwestern and MIT. They charge that because the demand to attend is sky high and not affected by price.

 

[sandysan]

problem is you're only looking at 1 half of the equation. The money brought in by athletics far outweighs the cost and is a large net positive financially for the schools. Hell, without athletics you'd be paying more for tuition.
.

the money that athletic departments bring is does not go into the general fund in Div 1 schools. it stays in the athletic departments budget. Yes, the atheletic department contributes by paying the tuition costs of some of its athletes ( or parts of some athletes) but the funds that are generated by collegiate athletics are largely maintained exclusively for athletics.

I seriously question whether people would pay more without athletics. whether this makes them bad or good is another question all together.

 

[Fugu]

the money that athletic departments bring is does not go into the general fund in Div 1 schools. it stays in the athletic departments budget. Yes, the atheletic department contributes by paying the tuition costs of some of its athletes ( or parts of some athletes) but the funds that are generated by collegiate athletics are largely maintained exclusively for athletics.

I seriously question whether people would pay more without athletics. whether this makes them bad or good is another question all together.

Thank you. I knew the money stayed in the athletic department. I also believe the universities pay for the buildings used for athletics.

Perhaps the bigger issue then is why the costs are rising much more quickly for tuition and such than inflation.

 

[sandysan]

Thank you. I knew the money stayed in the athletic department. I also believe the universities pay for the buildings used for athletics.

Perhaps the bigger issue then is why the costs are rising much more quickly for tuition and such than inflation.

The costs increase because there is always a demand to be "the best program in the country". the relationship is fantastically one sided. The athletic departments are treated as independent companies who have essentially entered into liscenceing agreements with the schools to use their logos. Their revenue streams are precisely that, theirs. But when times run lean, they can rely on getting ( and increasing) student fees to help them with the short fall.

The best description I have heard about collegiate athletics is that it is indeed big business but big business run badly. You luck out and your football team goes a long way resulting in a windfall ? spend it right away to try and recruit better football players, add more perks, add more staff. Your team underperforms ? Well if you don't spend more the gap between the haves and the have nots increases unless you keep up. where does this money come from ? It comes from the school.

football is the king in terms of revenue generation, and believe it or not a lot of football programs operate at a deficit. but it rarely, if ever, modulates their spending.

 

[joelef]

Nobody wants REAL amateurism . If they did the red vs blue intramural basketball game in the rec gym would be filled spectators.

 

[joelef]

I'm not sure that we can debate the totals in quite the way you bring it up here, but do consider that all these SCHOOLS (sorry to capitalize it) are there to help the states' or nations' citizens ACADEMICALLY. Not the rest of the world, though it is good to get some diversity too. You don't subsidize them because they're good at sports. The NBA and NFL certainly have more than enough money to run farm systems.

The schools aren't there to further a professor's publication list either. The schools were created to help young people achieve better lives. I cringe when I consider how much we were paying for my tuition a few decades ago vs what we paid for my kids (now done, thankfully). And the more successful you are, the less money you get back. State schools don't help you at all, beyond a token $1000 or something. Private schools help the poor and diverse crowd, but anyone at middle and upper levels isn't going to get much -- even if my definition of what constitutes middle and upper incomes is very different from the government and schools. The University of Washington at least recently lowered tuition for all the state schools. They realized it was getting beyond ridiculous.

Much of the federal funding is granted to professors, who have to write grants for research funding, so yes, some schools like U of Michigan and U of Washington top this list, but it mostly goes to grad programs and perhaps senior level undergrad research. It doesn't help undergrad tuition, nor book costs, nor food or housing, etc.

So as a parent, would you be happy to know that you have to spend $60-70K per year on college costs, or let each child borrow $30-40K for expenses while the "athletes" get a free ride for everything while having (in many cases) not the academic standing to even be there?

I don't mind sports businesses, but I heartily disagree that universities should be running them. $6 MM in salary to a football or basketball coach? Seriously!

Its only getting ridicules because we think every kid needa to go to college. Little Susie or johnny would most likely be better off going to trade school.

 

[joelef]

NCAA amateurism, scholarship rules to go on trial

Could be an interesting one to keep tabs over the next few months.

The NBA and NFL created this problem by being too cheap to start a minor league system.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

People who believe college athletes should not be paid are closed-minded. And that type of people should not be running the NCAA. This is the 21st century. It's very hypocritical for the association to make so much money off of college sports, yet not allow the athletes to see a dime.

CBS and Turner should help the athletes' cause by threatening to walk away from their March Madness TV contract unless people who believe in paying college athletes are hired to run the NCAA. These broadcasters should be uncomfortable with making money off of the NCAA tournament when the players do not.

Then Washington DC's mayor should sign a law prohibiting the NCAA from holding championship events in the city which will only be repealed when the NCAA starts paying college athletes. This would affect next year's D1 men's basketball tournament - the East Regionals are set for Washington, but this law would prevent the city from hosting them, I know one city who would be happy to replace them. Philadelphia, home of the defending champions Villanova.

 

[Bjorn Le]

There has to be a middle ground between what we have now, where certain NCAA staff and executives are paid millions of dollars and their star athletes are prohibited from monetizing their performance, and a reality where dozens of teams and sports are cut due to the fact you have to play all your athletes as employees.

I think they need to change some of the rules. Players should be able to sign endorsements, sell merchandise, demand compensation for use of their images (so you don’t have a situation where the polo team needs to be paid but athletes who star in widely televised games are). Allow players to be drafted in their leagues and stay in university (basically at leagues should adopt the NHL model). Essentially stop making buckets of ducats of off them at the same time as you crack the whip anytime they want to do the same.

 

[mouser]

Thank you. I knew the money stayed in the athletic department. I also believe the universities pay for the buildings used for athletics.

Perhaps the bigger issue then is why the costs are rising much more quickly for tuition and such than inflation.

My personal opinion is that a significant contributor to that rising cost is the ease at which student loans are available these days compared to yesteryear.

Remove or reduce the easy student loans and most schools would be more highly incentivized to find ways to keep their tuition costs down. Currently the schools have a simpler route of sending prospective students who can’t afford the rising tuition to the financial aid councilors to setup a loan.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

The NCAA could pay the athletes directly if its too cost-prohibitive for the universities to do so.

 

[varsaku]

A lot of schools don’t even turn a profit from their athletics program outside the huge football schools. Many schools see it as a good marketing opportunity and are okay pouring money in.

I wish they gave the option to student athletes that they will get a year of scholarship for each year they play. That will give the student the opportunity to focus on the sport that the program demands and not hinder their academics. Once they are done then they could use their scholarship to get a meaningful degree and have more time to focus on it.

I went to a big SEC school and almost all the football players majored in Turf Science or Poultry Science since those demanded less commitment and time.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

People who believe college athletes should not be paid are closed-minded. And that type of people should not be running the NCAA. This is the 21st century. It's very hypocritical for the association to make so much money off of college sports, yet not allow the athletes to see a dime.

CBS and Turner should help the athletes' cause by threatening to walk away from their March Madness TV contract unless people who believe in paying college athletes are hired to run the NCAA. These broadcasters should be uncomfortable with making money off of the NCAA tournament when the players do not.

Then Washington DC's mayor should sign a law prohibiting the NCAA from holding championship events in the city which will only be repealed when the NCAA starts paying college athletes. This would affect next year's D1 men's basketball tournament - the East Regionals are set for Washington, but this law would prevent the city from hosting them, I know one city who would be happy to replace them. Philadelphia, home of the defending champions Villanova.

no one is stopping these kids from getting paid.

they are choosing to go into a system where they are not paid for their play. nothing is stopping them from going and playing professionally in Europe for a year then enter the NBA draft. Worked just fine for Greek Freak

 

[sandysan]

There has to be a middle ground between what we have now, where certain NCAA staff and executives are paid millions of dollars and their star athletes are prohibited from monetizing their performance, and a reality where dozens of teams and sports are cut due to the fact you have to play all your athletes as employees.

I think they need to change some of the rules. Players should be able to sign endorsements, sell merchandise, demand compensation for use of their images (so you don’t have a situation where the polo team needs to be paid but athletes who star in widely televised games are). Allow players to be drafted in their leagues and stay in university (basically at leagues should adopt the NHL model). Essentially stop making buckets of ducats of off them at the same time as you crack the whip anytime they want to do the same.

if the NCAA has a list, " you just made the list!". There is no middle ground, the NCAA will continue to treat student athletes as chattle, set up punitive transfer policies, ignore made up imaginary classes and run those saccharine adds during the football playoffs and the final four about how beneficial it is for student athletes.

that's just how the NCAA rolls

 

[Bjorn Le]

if the NCAA has a list, " you just made the list!". There is no middle ground, the NCAA will continue to treat student athletes as chattle, set up punitive transfer policies, ignore made up imaginary classes and run those saccharine adds during the football playoffs and the final four about how beneficial it is for student athletes.

that's just how the NCAA rolls

Well it doesn't have to be like that.

no one is stopping these kids from getting paid.

they are choosing to go into a system where they are not paid for their play. nothing is stopping them from going and playing professionally in Europe for a year then enter the NBA draft. Worked just fine for Greek Freak

While no one might be physically forcing athletes to play in the NCAA, the whole system is rigged for the university athletics benefit. NFL players have literally no where else to go, kids coming out of high school aren't good enough to play in any of the other professional leagues, so they actually have no choice if they want to eventually get paid. For basketball players, the Europe route rarely works out, Giannis is an outlier, not an alternative.

 

[sandysan]

Well it doesn't have to be like that.



While no one might be physically forcing athletes to play in the NCAA, the whole system is rigged for the university athletics benefit. NFL players have literally no where else to go, kids coming out of high school aren't good enough to play in any of the other professional leagues, so they actually have no choice if they want to eventually get paid. For basketball players, the Europe route rarely works out, Giannis is an outlier, not an alternative.

who, prey tell, is going to stop them ? The student athletes are not a union and talks about players refusing to play to try to drive change are nothing but a pipe dream. Hell the real malcontents that the NCAA had to deal with were AFTER the kid stopped playing. The piece that john oliver did on the NCAA was savage and showed explicitly how bad the ncaa is, the stuff about phantom no work classes at UNC did more of the same. what happened ? ZERO. so long as the TV revenues keep rolling in, the NCAA can literally do whatever the hell it wants.

As of right now, if you want to play in the NFL ( the grand daddy of NCAA revenue generators) you almost certainly HAVE to play collegiate ball. Basketball a little less, hockey and baseball even less so. Vince mcMahon and the XFL version 2.0 might change this or it might be another boondoggle. And I know that there ARE real student athletes who do benefit from athletics but they are the real minority.

college foot ball benefits from the fact that there really is no other alternative to the NFL, it is a defacto minor league of the NFL that acts indepedent of the NFL. In hockey and baseball there ARE minor leagues where players can develop. That is the difference ( unless the xfl upsets the cart)

 

[tony d]

It's interesting for sure. I think athletes in football and basketball should get paid but hockey doesn't seem that big. Should those athletes get paid too? Got to think if college football and basketball players get paid, athletes in other sports would want to be paid as well.