|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 3, 2024 23:20:31 GMT -5
The NCAA on Saturday filed its legal response to the lawsuit filed by attorneys general from Tennessee and Virginia over the legality of name, image and likeness rules around recruiting, arguing that there is no case for injunctive relief to temporarily invalidate the NCAA’s rules. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, argues that the NCAA’s NIL rules around recruiting are an antitrust violation and requests a temporary restraining order to prevent the NCAA from enforcing those rules. It comes amid an NCAA investigation into multiple potential rules violations around NIL at Tennessee, the existence of which was made public on Monday and referenced in a letter from Tennessee chancellor Donde Plowman to NCAA president Charlie Baker. ADVERTISEMENT NCAA files response in Tennessee lawsuit, cites state’s laws barring NIL in recruiting The NCAA’s response argues that the two states fail to show irreparable harm in part because Tennessee’s own state law bars NIL inducements in recruiting. It also claims that the initial lawsuit doesn’t provide evidence the athlete opportunities are “chilled” by these rules, and it argues the lawsuit gives no reason for a need for injunctive relief because the NCAA’s NIL rules have been in place for years. “Tennessee is not irreparably harmed by rules restricting something the State’s laws independently prohibit,” the NCAA’s lawyers wrote, later adding, “The rules they seek to challenge have been in effect for years, and Plaintiffs offer no justification for claiming an entitlement to emergency relief on a truncated record after delaying years in seeking any relief.” The response also makes the case, as the NCAA has argued before, that it is a voluntary organization and that schools, including Tennessee, have long agreed to be involved in the NCAA governance process and abide by its rules. theathletic.com/5249370/2024/02/03/ncaa-response-tennessee-nil-lawsuit/
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Feb 25, 2024 11:57:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sluggermatt15 on Feb 25, 2024 15:32:33 GMT -5
It's about time the court got it right. Who cares if schools want to recruit kids using NIL?
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 25, 2024 18:10:56 GMT -5
It's about time the court got it right. Who cares if schools want to recruit kids using NIL? Me. The imbalances are bad enough as it is regarding resources. The introduction of NIL practically guarantees the schools that can create the most robust NIL infrastructures will have virtually insurmountable competitive advantages over the long term. If I had my way we’d go back to pre 1984 when the NCAA controlled how much everyone received from television revenue and how often they appeared.
|
|
|
Post by sluggermatt15 on Feb 25, 2024 18:53:49 GMT -5
It's about time the court got it right. Who cares if schools want to recruit kids using NIL? Me. The imbalances are bad enough as it is regarding resources. The introduction of NIL practically guarantees the schools that can create the most robust NIL infrastructures will have virtually insurmountable competitive advantages over the long term. If I had my way we’d go back to pre 1984 when the NCAA controlled how much everyone received from television revenue and how often they appeared. A problem is there is no one means/method/plan to make NIL (or the College Football Playoff, for that matter) even for all schools in every conference.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 25, 2024 21:03:50 GMT -5
Just pay the players and the collectives go away. You would be in a better position to know this, but if the schools start paying, don't they have to offer comparable amounts of money to female athletes? And the collectives do not? So if I donate $100,000 to the school only $50,000 would go to the football team but if I donate $100,000 to the collective arguably $100,000 could go to football. So why would we expect collectives to go away? What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 25, 2024 21:04:43 GMT -5
Money given to a collective whose sole purpose is to pay athletes at a particular school isn’t tax deductible. That reality is transforming the collective model because as much as rich donors like making splashy donations, they like the idea of tax deductions even better. It’s not transforming the collective model as much as you think. NIL payments are still on a hockey puck growth pattern. People want to win. It's a hockey stick growth pattern, isn't it? Not a hockey puck?
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 25, 2024 21:09:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 25, 2024 21:09:38 GMT -5
Just pay the players and the collectives go away. You would be in a better position to know this, but if the schools start paying, don't they have to offer comparable amounts of money to female athletes? And the collectives do not? So if I donate $100,000 to the school only $50,000 would go to the football team but if I donate $100,000 to the collective arguably $100,000 could go to football. So why would we expect collectives to go away? What am I missing? Maybe? Who knows what the implications of employment are for Title IX. That all might get covered instead by labor laws and a collective bargaining agreement.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Feb 25, 2024 22:24:32 GMT -5
It’s not transforming the collective model as much as you think. NIL payments are still on a hockey puck growth pattern. People want to win. It's a hockey stick growth pattern, isn't it? Not a hockey puck? Lol. It’s my German’s bombing Pearl Harbor moment. Please give me a little grace. But yes. That’s honestly hilarious. Thanks for catching that.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 26, 2024 4:44:37 GMT -5
It's a hockey stick growth pattern, isn't it? Not a hockey puck? Lol. It’s my German’s bombing Pearl Harbor moment. Please give me a little grace. But yes. That’s honestly hilarious. Thanks for catching that. We'll let it go, 'cause you're on a roll.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 26, 2024 10:35:59 GMT -5
You would be in a better position to know this, but if the schools start paying, don't they have to offer comparable amounts of money to female athletes? And the collectives do not? So if I donate $100,000 to the school only $50,000 would go to the football team but if I donate $100,000 to the collective arguably $100,000 could go to football. So why would we expect collectives to go away? What am I missing? Maybe? Who knows what the implications of employment are for Title IX. That all might get covered instead by labor laws and a collective bargaining agreement. Maybe. But you're right that we don't know. My read is that Title IX is law explicitly regarding the current NCAA model - equality in participation and scholarships. If you'd want equality in salaries, you'd need a separate law. And if we're paying athletes, why would we make this law applicable to SEC institutions but not the NBA/WNBA? All that to say, I'm highly skeptical that it would pass. There are over 500,000 student athletes. I think being allowed to pay athletes will be beneficial to about 10,000 of them. And be detrimental to the other 490,000. Things like chartered flights for volleyball might become a thing of the past. Maybe that's more fair. Maybe not. But athletic department budgets, while very high at some schools, is not unlimited. They'll have to find ways to pay athletes (and have bidding wars for the best football and basketball players) out of the same budget they have today when they DON'T have to pay athletes more than the cost of a scholarship.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 12:11:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 12:11:57 GMT -5
Maybe? Who knows what the implications of employment are for Title IX. That all might get covered instead by labor laws and a collective bargaining agreement. Maybe. But you're right that we don't know. My read is that Title IX is law explicitly regarding the current NCAA model - equality in participation and scholarships. If you'd want equality in salaries, you'd need a separate law. And if we're paying athletes, why would we make this law applicable to SEC institutions but not the NBA/WNBA? All that to say, I'm highly skeptical that it would pass. Title IX pertains to education, not specifically athletics. If it somehow was interpreted to mean equal pay for male and female college athletes (very unlikely, in my view, but who knows), it wouldn't apply to the WNBA and NBA because they aren't subject to Title IX. And they have collective bargaining agreements.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 12:17:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 26, 2024 12:17:34 GMT -5
There are over 500,000 student athletes. I think being allowed to pay athletes will be beneficial to about 10,000 of them. And be detrimental to the other 490,000. This isn't going to mean a thing to the vast vast majority of athletes. The schools chartering for volleyball have plenty of money and are soon about to have plenty more, in most cases. Money that would normally be donated to university foundations is currently going directly to athletes through the collectives. Once the players on on the university payroll, that money is free to go back to the foundations. It's not like it's disappearing from the ecosystem.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Feb 26, 2024 13:57:33 GMT -5
It’s not transforming the collective model as much as you think. NIL payments are still on a hockey puck growth pattern. People want to win. It's a hockey stick growth pattern, isn't it? Not a hockey puck? I'm so glad this got clarified, because I had no idea what that could mean. Certainly not puck-shaped. I was thinking "with the speed of a slap shot," but this not only makes sense, but it's something I've heard before.
|
|
|
NIL money
Feb 26, 2024 14:57:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by n00b on Feb 26, 2024 14:57:50 GMT -5
The schools chartering for volleyball have plenty of money and are soon about to have plenty more, in most cases. Money that would normally be donated to university foundations is currently going directly to athletes through the collectives. Once the players on on the university payroll, that money is free to go back to the foundations. It's not like it's disappearing from the ecosystem. But there’s no way they limit player salaries to only that money. Suppose Michigan athletics brings in $100 million in revenue. And separately $50 mil goes to athletes via collectives. If Michigan can start paying athletes, they won’t limit themselves to that $50 mil. Operating budgets will be cut so as much money can go to player salaries as possible.
|
|