Humm, then a lot of people need all that money they paid for college back then...since it doesn't have value. What a farce.
The Supreme Court rules.....
- Thread starter Bill Shankly
- Start date
Just so I can keep up, woke now means the following
- being aware of racial injustice and inconsistency, and pushing back on those historical issues.
- being concerned about a global pandemic and following medical advice as it is formed and adjusted for the novel virus.
- wanting scholarships to continue in college athletics instead of contractually paying student athletes.
Have I missed anything? As it stands, that may be the most widely defined and applied term in all of history.
When you get your panties in a wad is when you need to take the time to read carefully. The fact that you quoted me twice without reading what I typed is typical.
It's an antitrust action involving a sports league. That there are other leagues they can compete in speaks to the antitrust concept of monopoly.
And if you unwadded your panties and read, you would realize I cited not a single case and didn't make a legal argument anywhere in my post. That's because I clearly wasn't making a positive argument, but a normative one. I am not arguing that the Supreme Court misapplied the law. I don't know what the law is on this (I'm not sure there is a lot of well fleshed out law on antitrust and leagues; I think it's difficult to apply traditional antitrust reasoning to sports leagues b/c they almost by definition have to collude on some things (ETA: although in a 9-0 decision, I'm guessing there was pretty decent precedent on this)). I am making a normative argument based on what I view to be common sense and fair play arguments. I don't think it should be impermissible for high school athletics associations to prohibit schools from paying players to play for them. I understand the argument that anytime somebody is willing to pay somebody, they should be able to make money, and it's not a terrible one. But I also think people and organizations within reason should be able to freely associate with each other and decide their rules for membership. Similarly, if the NCAA wanted to do away with scholarships and paid coaches because they wanted to get out of minor league professional sports, I think it should be perfectly legal for them to do so and have essentially the equivalent of club teams playing in intercollegiate sports, with prohibitions against any athlete or coach getting paid, regardless of the potential market there. As long as they are in the minor league professional sports, I think it should be fine for colleges to agree on compensation limits, as long as the total compensation isn't grossly below other minor league athletes (excluding the compensation that is tied to the team paying for future rights to sign the player, which granted can be hard to distinguish, but I think is mainly just a thing in MLB in the US). For any athletes unhappy with the compensation, they should be free to go play in leagues that pay more.
Last edited:
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and 3 other justices can effectively make the law what they say it is, but they can't change reality otherwise. Athletes are paid in kind and unless something has changed since I was in school, are paid in cash for some of the benefits. I'm sure the form of pay is relevant for a lot of legal analyses, but it's undeniable that college athletes receive compensation.
I think to have a salary cap you pretty much have to be negotiating with a players union. One of the labor disputes (I think in the NBA?), one of the strategies for the players discussed was that they would decertify their union and then the league would be subject to traditional antitrust review and presumably unable to work together to impose a salary cap. Grain of salt and all that.
How many people watch MSU women's basketball but not the WNBA? I would guess the majority of MSU women's basketball fans? Despite the fact that the WNBA teams would presumably mop the floor with our team consistently.
People like watching "their" college win. So the athletes definitely matter to how much support the school gets, but for a lot of the fans, they would rather watch their school than watch the highest levels of the whatever sport you are talking about.
And if you add in the free education, that's like the boss paying for one of your hobbies, too. Imagine all your golf or fishing expenses paid for.
So none of your posts have anyting to do with the OP, or the SCOTUS ruling.
Got you. Silly that I assumed several posts in a thread had anything to do with the OP.
Also, again, if you read either opinion, you'd see that the court completely disagreed with your " they can go work somewhere else" "Normative argument."
But you are too arrogant to do that.
Got you. Silly that I assumed several posts in a thread had anything to do with the OP.
Also, again, if you read either opinion, you'd see that the court completely disagreed with your " they can go work somewhere else" "Normative argument."
But you are too arrogant to do that.
What about high school athletes? Can Prep now offer the best in Jackson $20k to
play football? The private schools for a while now have been able to attract a few scholarship athletes in search of a better education, but if they offer cash money, will they be able to get almost any athlete in the area? For those who would stay in public schools so they can get exposure by playing against the best--the more quality players the private schools start to get, the competition might improve enough for the best athletes to get exposure playing against the best . That will allow it even more players to transfer to private schools.
Or even among public schools? Will HS athletes transfer even more to better public schools with alums who will give money for athletes?
play football? The private schools for a while now have been able to attract a few scholarship athletes in search of a better education, but if they offer cash money, will they be able to get almost any athlete in the area? For those who would stay in public schools so they can get exposure by playing against the best--the more quality players the private schools start to get, the competition might improve enough for the best athletes to get exposure playing against the best . That will allow it even more players to transfer to private schools.
Or even among public schools? Will HS athletes transfer even more to better public schools with alums who will give money for athletes?
That's moving the goalposts.
The argument is the "athletes don't matter, it's only the university". And that's why no matter our talent we have the same attendance at every sport, for every game.****
And it's why UAB has the same attendance we do with the same enrollment, because people only care about the schools and not the quality of product.***
Or maybe, it's some of both... People care about their university, but only if the teams are good.... And people care about their pro sports team, but only if the teams are good....
What makes a good sports team? Athletes....
Again, not my argument. Just quoting SCOTUS....
Both opinions clearly said the athletes were not paid. If you want to keep your head in the sand about it, that's your deliberate ignorance.
To be an antitrust applicable equivalence, Prep would have to coordinate with private schools in jackson. To get it on the SCOTUS agenda, it would have to be across states...
There is also the small issue that the TV contract for Prep is slightly smaller than the SEC Network deal....
And you could google what normative means, so that you could understand that yes, normative statements can be related to and responsive to a legal opinion and you maybe wouldn't say stupid **** like "the court disagreed with your...normative argument." (Just so you know, if the judges are doing their job, you won't know whether they agree with a normative argument, unless they include their position as dicta or otherwise make statements that allow you to infer their position.)
So you'd live in an apartment next to your office? and eat only at the company cafeteria? And you don't need money for a car because you have no commute...
I call ********.
I call ********.
Almost all correct. I don't think anybody is arguing that the athletes don't matter, it's just that they are not as important as the university. Many fans care about one or more of their university sports teams even when they are bad. Hence still having season tickets sold in the Crooms years. Many fans care about their sports teams only when they are good relative to other colleges. MSU fans didn't start caring about women's basketball because the play on the floor looked that much better after Vic (although it almost certainly did); they mainly just started caring because they like winning. If the NBA really expanded the G-League such that the top 100 prospects went to the G-League each year, I don't think college basketball fandom would measurably drop. It might even increase because even though the absolute quality would drop, having fewer players leave after a year or two might result in a more entertaining product because teams could invest in teaching more complicated offensive and defensive concepts.
There are certainly some fans that care about the overall quality of play. I'm guessing there are some basketball fans that don't watch college basketball that might would if college basketball was more like the 80's, where top teams had more upperclassmen that were good enough to be quality NBA rookies while they still played college ball. But for the most part, I think those type fans in college are the minority. If you really care about the quality of play that much, you will most likely just be a professional fan and just watch college when there is not a professional option.
Then the opinions were factually wrong, unless they said something along the lines of "they are primarily paid in kind with only no or limited cash compensation".
Prep does coordinate with other private schools, not just in Jackson but throughout the state and across state lines through I think the MAIS (although there may be a different organization that does the athletics rules that has more or less the same membership as MAIS).
Oh, so its now a term that is used for when you think someone doesnt understand your version of reality, regardless of subject. Gotcha. Well that is much simpler to understand.***
Or i could know what it means, cite and quote for you what the judges said and let you know again, clearly, that your "normative argument" doesn't hold weight.
All of which you would know. If you read this link https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
It mentions the viability of other markets for players, fair market value of the athletes, current above and under table payments as compensation, and several of your other other arguments...
Like I said. you keep arguing with the ruling without reading it.
Look. I know you think you are smarter than everyone else, but the NCAA made all of your points, and more as arguments on why they should win the case, and Gorsuch tore them apart one by one...
Kavanaugh piles on.
Last edited:
Oh, good point! Communist and/or Socialist are probably more widely defined and applied. They are also more incorrectly used.
There are more people and companies that won't participate in under the table stuff than will. This opens it up. People that think this will just be all athletes at all schools getting paid are deluding themselves. This is going to be a very few athletes at a very few schools getting a lot of money, and most of the rest getting the same or more likely LESS.
So you are ok with some players getting paid, but not all players getting paid?
In your medical practice, does everyone get paid? Or just a couple people?
What's the argument as to why that matters? Is it just once a school sports league generates so much money, they have to become professional sports and subject to antitrust? That doesn't seem to be a well grounded principle.
I'd be sympathetic to the idea that once you start making coaches and administrators rich, you can't remain an amateur sports organization, except that schools aren't allowed to stop their coaches and administrators from becoming rich, so that goes back to once there is interest, you have to become a professional sports organization.
I could see the argument that it is all or nothing. Either no benefits are offered other than the costs of actually competing (i.e., equipment, travel costs, etc.
but once players are compensated at all, even if it's in kind, you are now a professional sports organization subject to antitrust. Kind of harsh to apply that after the fact.
I think you are missing the part where the athletes want to go to college and play ball. There are a lot of moving parts on this one, but equivocation with slavery is just lazy and untrue.
I most certainly am. That's why I support NIL. Not all of them need to be paid. We all agree that the scholarship, etc. is SOMETHING, maybe not enough, but it is a form of payment. Some deserve more. Most do not.
Like others have said, the school creates a big portion of the brand. It's not all the athlete. Most athletes are getting more out of this deal than the school. A select few are bringing in more than they take. They deserve some payment, therefore NIL.
Pretty good take on this issue, in my opinion. I don’t think athletes will ever be on payroll for a college. Honestly I’m not even sure anyone is seriously suggesting that. At least anyone that matters. But what a player should be able to do is earn money on sponsorships, if he/she can. Is there a way for that to be abused, absolutely there is. However, I just don’t think it will be as rampant as Bill Shankly believes.
Agreed, NIL is a logical starting point because it leaves a pretty sweet deal behind for those already getting it and opens up possibilities that, frankly, would eventually be used to legitimately do what already happens under the table. It also opens up the market to decide the value of a player without leaving such a decision to an organization as dubious as the NCAA, the universities, or the government. The former and middle have a financial interest in driving that value down as much as possible. The latter is comically incompetent. If OBJ wants to pass out $100 bills for performance in the National Championship games it becomes his business, same if some Starkville restaurant wants to produce an ad that pays the starting QB at MSU a cool, legal, 10k, and perhaps advertise that such a deal is possible in the future for other starting QBs at MSU. Same for any business that wants to use NIL to sell their products while simultaneously encouraging the growth of an industry that bolsters their sales during tourist season. If someone wants to pay an athlete to come to their school they need only to fabricate a reason to pay for their likeness as opposed to under the table and thus tax evasive strategies currently in use.
Last edited:
I didn’t. My intent is that they would go buy **** with borrowed money that they would later pay off with the 4 year money earned.
Don’t you have a granny that you need to be driving around? I’m sure she wouldn’t appreciate you spending all of your time on SPS.
Don’t you have a granny that you need to be driving around? I’m sure she wouldn’t appreciate you spending all of your time on SPS.
Latest
-
01
Rivals Football Recruiting
Jeff Lebby’s recruiting pitch is playing out in real time, and top targets are taking notice
-
02
Maroon and White
Mississippi State Keys to Victory against Missouri
-
03
Maroon and White
No. 24 Mississippi State vs. No. 19 Mizzou: How, where and when to watch the Bulldogs
-
04
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State DL Eddie Kelly Jr. active for the Bulldogs against former team
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State vs. Mizzou History