It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL (/thread-23046.html)
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - 82lsju - 05-03-2022
(05-03-2022, 07:15 AM)Phogge Wrote: Is the USGA Amateur Championship still amateur? In other words does the hotshot Stanford freshman (sorry, can’t think of her name) get excluded if she accepts NIL?
from the below I'd say she would not be excluded
Quote:Accepting Compensation for Use of Name, Image and Likeness
An amateur golfer may accept payment or compensation, including expenses, for using or allowing the use of their name, image or likeness to promote or sell a product or service.
While such actions are not contrary to the Rules, it may be contrary to the regulations of other organisations or institutions. For example, a player in receipt of a university or college scholarship should ensure that accepting payment of any kind does not conflict with their eligibility for such a scholarship.
Student-athletes and prospective student-athletes are advised to consult their national governing body, their educational institution’s compliance office or the appropriate national educational body for guidance.
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/amateur-status/amateur-status-modernization/general-guidance-notes.html
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - lex24 - 05-03-2022
(05-02-2022, 08:59 PM)Goose Wrote: I think the Supreme Court is relying in the idea that if the NCAA needs some regulatory powers that it does not now have, Congress is perfectly free to give them such powers. Unless and until that happens, the NCAA and/or the conferences cannot restrain trade. Period. Any regulation that prevents an athlete from being paid to do something cannot come from the NCAA. It can come from an individual school, because they can control their own admission standards. The schools cannot collude together and agree on such regulations however.
The issue is characterization. If there is a case that determine they are employees, then College sports is doomed. Unless Congress steps in. And even then , there would be lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of their legislation.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Genuine Realist - 05-03-2022
(05-03-2022, 07:39 AM)lex24 Wrote:(05-02-2022, 08:59 PM)Goose Wrote: I think the Supreme Court is relying in the idea that if the NCAA needs some regulatory powers that it does not now have, Congress is perfectly free to give them such powers. Unless and until that happens, the NCAA and/or the conferences cannot restrain trade. Period. Any regulation that prevents an athlete from being paid to do something cannot come from the NCAA. It can come from an individual school, because they can control their own admission standards. The schools cannot collude together and agree on such regulations however.
The issue is characterization. If there is a case that determine they are employees, then College sports is doomed. Unless Congress steps in. And even then , their would be lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of their legislation.
It's been interesting to read in some of the later posts how human nature is going to be changed utterly by NIL. Kids who do not throw games when they're being paid nothing will somehow be motivated to throw them if they receive NIL money. Huh??
Boosters will take over the game. Never mind that boosters were far more a factor in the 50's and 60's before big pro money showed up, and the likes of Bud Wilkinson, Darryl Royal, Frank Broyles and the like seemed to have no trouble keeping control of their programs.
Back in the day, when the money college sports generated was relatively small and professional careers in the schoolboy sports (football and basketball) a gleam in the eye, it might have made some sense to worry about payment to players. But now the money at the college level has become a torrent, every quality athlete dreams of playing professionally, and the landscape has changed entirely. The only way to approach college sports is with the icy logic of academics and extracurricular activities.
1. If a student is enrolled in school and meets academic requirements, he or she is eligible to play varsity sports. Period. The NCAA should restrict itself almost entirely to academic integrity. The travesty that happened at North Carolina is indicative of how totally values have been turned around by the obsession with amateurism. The academic failure should be central to the NCAA mission and North Carolina should have been sanctioned accordingly.
2. Schools cannot play players. They are schools and these are students.
3. Schools own the revenues from bowl games, the NCAA tournament, and so on. These were developed by the academies, and fans follow them out of loyalty to the institution, not particular players.
4. Schools do NOT own the celebrity that comes with athletic success, and they should not be in the business of regulating how students exploit it. They also do not own the professional potential of an athlete and should have no right to prohibit or forbid his or her contracting with anyone who is interested in it - and I particularly mean to include professional franchises, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and so on. A set-up where the student athlete develops maturity and athletic skills simultaneously over his college years seems ideal to me. No one would have any problem if we were discussing a musician, actress, another type of performing artist, or even a budding entrepreneur. Why is an athlete any different?
There's an obsession with boosters here. i'm not so sure. The intensity of Kentucky's BBN has to be experienced to be believed. Oscar Tshiebwe does not need cynical booster money to do well. Every kid in Kentucky is going to want a jersey with his name on it, and it is going to go on for some years after he's used up eligibility (they still sell Issel jerseys). The Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Clemson and other football fan bases are even larger. You don't have to conjure up cynical boosters to note the income potential.
More than that, if you've been following enforcement for the last few years, the big NCAA issue has not been boosters, but illicit agents, particularly in AAU basketball. Those big booster payments, to the extent they exist, are usually investments in the athletic future. You think anyone is going to pay serious money for an unproven kid who may be gone in a year? Not likely.
You can't prohibit an athlete from marketing his celebrity and . . . you shouldn't. It belongs to him or her, and they have every right to profit from it. What is unprincipled and unsettling is that the notion that the school has any right or interest in this. Why? On what possible basis? Some phantom notion of athletic purity? Gimme a break.
The only solution is to go the other way and drop all the artificial nonsense. Back to the numbers.
5. Schools have no interest in a student athlete's personal finances, other than the prohibition against payment by the schools themselves. If an Elway enrolls with a contract in hand from the Broncos or Rams, so be it. It's no different than a family trust. I've read all sorts of parade-of-horribles arguments about interference by the pros, but that's nonsense. The world being like it is, and the coaching fraternity being pretty large, everyone is going to be interested in the kid ending up in an academic and athletic situation that makes the best sense for him. (There is also the reality that at the moment athletes do get input from other sources than their coaches. But they get it from the worst possible sources - friends, admirers, overly ambitions dads, etc. The professional evaluators, coaches and scouts, who might give them cold-blooded objective advice, are barred from the process.)
In short, you take the schools completely out of the business of supervising the student's economic life. It doesn't do it with any other enrollees, and it shouldn't do it with athletes.
The cat's out of the bag with the student owning the rights to his celebrity, which is actually the way the system always should have been. Limitations are outrageous. That being the case, the only way forward is to discard all the monstrous, cumbersome apparatus altogether. Stick to transcripts and academic performance. Let the water seek its own level.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-03-2022
(05-03-2022, 08:24 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The travesty that happened at North Carolina is indicative of how totally values have been turned around by the obsession with amateurism. The academic failure should be central to the NCAA mission and North Carolina should have been sanctioned accordingly.How did it have anything at all to do with amateurism? It had to do with getting and keeping players eligible to play for North Carolina without them doing the required academic work. That would happen if the athletes were getting compensated or not. They could have a contract in hand or not, makes no difference. Indeed it was an NCAA violation, as it would be in your system as well, but it has nothing at all to do with compensation as far as I can see.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Genuine Realist - 05-03-2022
(05-03-2022, 10:26 AM)Goose Wrote:There were a few posts above that discussed the North Carolina scandal.(05-03-2022, 08:24 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: The travesty that happened at North Carolina is indicative of how totally values have been turned around by the obsession with amateurism. The academic failure should be central to the NCAA mission and North Carolina should have been sanctioned accordingly.How did it have anything at all to do with amateurism? It had to do with getting and keeping players eligible to play for North Carolina without them doing the required academic work. That would happen if the athletes were getting compensated or not. They could have a contract in hand or not, makes no difference. Indeed it was an NCAA violation, as it would be in your system as well, but it has nothing at all to do with compensation as far as I can see.
To me, the NCAA dithering reflected complete confusion as to what its actual mission is. It's death on someone giving a kid a free Coke, but can't get it together when it comes to cheating athletes out of the educational opportunity that is the whole point.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-03-2022
(05-03-2022, 11:11 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: There were a few posts above that discussed the North Carolina scandal.I am not defending the NCAA, but how did North Carolina cheat the athletes out of an educational opportunity? The athletes could have taken other classes. They could have even turned in North Carolina for giving credit for work not done. The athletes were part of the problem too. The NCAA didn't punish North Carolina because ostensibly these same academic improprieties were available to all students. That is a problem for the accreditation groups. Unfortunately, they too did nothing.
To me, the NCAA dithering reflected complete confusion as to what its actual mission is. It's death on someone giving a kid a free Coke, but can't get it together when it comes to cheating athletes out of the educational opportunity that is the whole point.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Genuine Realist - 05-03-2022
(05-03-2022, 11:31 AM)Goose Wrote:The athletes are kids. The North Carolina academics had a responsibility to them.(05-03-2022, 11:11 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: There were a few posts above that discussed the North Carolina scandal.I am not defending the NCAA, but how did North Carolina cheat the athletes out of an educational opportunity? The athletes could have taken other classes. They could have even turned in North Carolina for giving credit for work not done. The athletes were part of the problem too. The NCAA didn't punish North Carolina because ostensibly these same academic improprieties were available to all students. That is a problem for the accreditation groups. Unfortunately, they too did nothing.
To me, the NCAA dithering reflected complete confusion as to what its actual mission is. It's death on someone giving a kid a free Coke, but can't get it together when it comes to cheating athletes out of the educational opportunity that is the whole point.
Whether you think the athletes were victims or not, this is core cheating - and the NCAA could not cope with it. This to me is one of the effects of the skewed value system the amateurism rules have produced. Money, which conceptually doesn't matter, matters quite a bit. Academics, which should be central, don't matter at all.
John Calipari on NIL guarantees. His attitude will surprise you.
https://www.on3.com/teams/kentucky-wildcats/news/john-calipari-slams-nil-demands-with-transfer-portal-targets/?fbclid=IwAR2rMuonTm-z86YXhc1FGckEeQvCXBrgLfWYtuGQC0xKIAoXdcUe7M2uPJc
This is what I mean by water seeking its level. As I mentioned in describing the BBN, come to Kentucky and play well, and the money will be there. Kentucky basketball won't come off second to anyone financially.
But Cal wants nothing to do with guarantees or players that put money first. I think that will be a fairly typical coach's attitude.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - TrumpCard - 05-04-2022
(05-02-2022, 10:34 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(05-02-2022, 10:00 AM)needle Wrote: just maybe something might be done to try to curb what's going on.
Who or what entity might step in? The Supreme Court effectively told the NCAA to keep their hands off of NIL matters. "In a 9–0 unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that NCAA restrictions on 'education-related benefits' for college athletes violated antitrust law."
Without action from Congress to grant them an anti-trust exemption, what role can the NCAA play?
The only other governing bodies in college sports are the conferences. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if they might also be constrained by the Supreme Court ruling. But good luck trying to get all of the conferences to agree on anything anyway.
I think this is right on both counts. The Supreme Court has spoken (correctly, IMHO). The NCAA rules were an illegal restraint on trade and student athletes have been deprived of many millions of dollars in income. The law and fairness required the development of a new system that would fairly compensate student athletes. Lots of schools are upset over this and will field worse athletic teams. Stanford is high on the list of losing schools. Tough. Stanford had been benefitting from NCAA rules that screwed athletes and fielded good athletic teams because it could offer something (a 200k education) when other schools were prohibited from offering other benefits. That racket is over. As a Stanford fan, I'm disappointed, but so be it.
But the second part of your post is correct too. Congress can change the free-for-all that we see today if it wants to do so. Since the schools that are winning are the flagship schools from like 10 states, there probably are a lot of members of Congress whose constituencies would like a different system. The new system might find a balance that allows the NCAA to remain competitve with more schools landing top recruits, but avoid the extreme unfairness of the old system. I'm sure people are working very hard to find a balance like that. I don't know what it would be, but I'm open to alternatives that reduce the feeling of sliminess that pervades the current NIL regime.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - mbdude - 05-05-2022
SEC, Pac12 comissioners seek help with NIL rules
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33858420/sec-pac-12-commissioners-visit-washington-pursuit-help-nil-policies-source-says
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-05-2022
Once you give something to people, it's near impossible to take it back. And just because you take it back doesn't mean those who lost it will stop trying to get it back. Russia is finding this out in Ukraine, and those wanting to taking privacy rights from women are going to find out.
And so too are boosters not going to give up the power they seized when the NCAA went to sleep and flew the white flag on student athlete compensation and NIL. Do you really think a Senator from Tennessee - heart of SEC country - is not going to be bought off by boosters to block any attempt at limiting their newfound power? Really?
Kliavkoff and Sankey are showing how desperate they are to stop the inevitable - schools forced to pay athletes as employees - from happening. The words Kliavkoff uses make it pretty clear. They can form a small group if they want, but someone representing the athletes can sue under the guise schools are colluding to suppress compensation, they will be 100% correct, and courts will affirm this fact.
It's just another piece of evidence that proves my contention that so many on this board can't accept, that the NCAA blew it by not doing enough to placate athletes by proactively offering them more. Some will say if schools gave athletes something as a goodwill gesture, they would sue for more, but I don't think college athletes were looking for the kind of money we see in some of these NIL deals, when asking for better conditions, a lot of which didn't even involve cash payments.
As soon as schools give up trying to monetize the bodies of athletes, they can stand on firm ground taking a position against "pay for play." But until they do that, they are standing on sinking ground and will lose. Every business in the country would love to suppress the wages its labor can receive, but it can't be done without permission. Why should schools get to suppress wages without consent from labor while nobody else can?
The more money is bandied about with NIL deals, the more it becomes clear the athletes don't care about being students, as much as paid professionals. The contradictions the schools have to argue through leave their position without any credibility, unless you are Stanford, and maybe a handful of others.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - cardcrimson - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 08:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Once you give something to people, it's near impossible to take it back. And just because you take it back doesn't mean those who lost it will stop trying to get it back. Russia is finding this out in Ukraine, and those wanting to taking privacy rights from women are going to find out.
What does this have to do with NIL?
TreesAndBirds - TreesAndBirds - 05-05-2022
Article in todays WSJ on collectives. It’s behind a paywall but 2 tidbits…
47 of the 65 schools in the Power 5 currently have collectives or similar groups.
Contributions to Division 1 athletic programs in 2021 was $1.3Billion. The question is how much of that gets re-directed to NIL.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ncaa-name-image-likeness-collectives-11651761397
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 08:48 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(05-05-2022, 08:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Once you give something to people, it's near impossible to take it back. And just because you take it back doesn't mean those who lost it will stop trying to get it back. Russia is finding this out in Ukraine, and those wanting to taking privacy rights from women are going to find out.
What does this have to do with NIL?
I explained it in the next paragraph. You see, there are certain dynamics that play out everywhere in society that can be distilled into very simple terms. But in order to describe those terms and drive home the validity of this assertion, examples must be provided.
The point is nobody likes giving up what they have been given, especially if they had to fight hard and/or have been pushing hard for what they ultimately got over a long period. Ukraine sovereignty and women's privacy are current examples. Do you know how long women fought for the right to vote? Think they would give that up? Hell to the no is the answer. Boosters fall under the same umbrella.
Boosters have gained the right to use their money to influence who plays for their school of choice in a way they never could before. There is simply no way in hell they are giving that right up. None. Just like Ukraine isn't giving up its sovereignty and women aren't giving up their right to privacy.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Softball Fan - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 09:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(05-05-2022, 08:48 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(05-05-2022, 08:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Once you give something to people, it's near impossible to take it back. And just because you take it back doesn't mean those who lost it will stop trying to get it back. Russia is finding this out in Ukraine, and those wanting to taking privacy rights from women are going to find out.
What does this have to do with NIL?
I explained it in the next paragraph. You see, there are certain dynamics that play out everywhere in society that can be distilled into very simple terms. But in order to describe those terms and drive home the validity of this assertion, examples must be provided.....
Just like Ukraine isn't giving up its sovereignty and women aren't giving up their right to privacy.
You are so full of crap. Twisting yourself into a pretzel does not justify violating rules. Why are the moderators not putting an end to this guy's continual use of political agendas unrelated to the thread topic.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 09:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Boosters have gained the right to use their money to influence who plays for their school of choice in a way they never could before. There is simply no way in hell they are giving that right up. None. Just like Ukraine isn't giving up its sovereignty and women aren't giving up their right to privacy.OF, I think it is very, very hard to justify the idea boosters had anything at all to do with the Supreme Court declaring that the NCAA couldn't restrain trade. Yes, they boosters perhaps had a serendipity that increase their power, but the idea they are organized and wedded to that concept is not in evidence. It was not and is not an organized movement with a specific goal. Changing the NIL system yet again is not likely to change that. No comparison at all to the other two groups you cite.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-05-2022, 09:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Boosters have gained the right to use their money to influence who plays for their school of choice in a way they never could before. There is simply no way in hell they are giving that right up. None. Just like Ukraine isn't giving up its sovereignty and women aren't giving up their right to privacy.OF, I think it is very, very hard to justify the idea boosters had anything at all to do with the Supreme Court declaring that the NCAA couldn't restrain trade. Yes, they boosters perhaps had a serendipity that increase their power, but the idea they are organized and wedded to that concept is not in evidence. It was not and is not an organized movement with a specific goal. Changing the NIL system yet again is not likely to change that. No comparison at all to the other two groups you cite.
When did I say boosters had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision? I said that given the NCAA waved the white flag on NIL (after the SCOTUS ruling), boosters gained a lot more power (rights) to influence the acquisition of talent for their team of choice and they are not giving it up.
I used examples of others not giving up things and rights as evidence of this to drive home the point. It isn't happening.
Getting Congress involved is a terrible idea. Schools are basically asking lawmakers to write a law that is unconstitutional, so they can exploit under paid labor. It's just not going to happen.
Here's a metaphor for schools trying to get control over boosters who now are feeling their agency to influence where the talent goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdpG8JslTCA
What can happen is that the market for talent figures itself out. The schools having a fit over how NIL money can't be used as pay for play, is just that, a fit, like a baby crying because it can't stand that it can't get what it wants. The NCAA can limit transfers as we discussed, but it's never, ever putting the NIL money as pay for play genie back in the bottle. It has no mechanism to do so and Congress isn't going to change this reality.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 12:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:Indeed you did. And I pointed out that the other examples you used were nothing at all like the situation that existed in the NIL situation. The examples you used were powers (rights) that the people involved had fought for for YEARS, against bitter opposition. As you yourself just pointed out, the NIL situation is completely different. The boosters are the beneficiaries of a SCOTUS ruling that they had no part of. Your examples are therefore manifestly irrelevant.(05-05-2022, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-05-2022, 09:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Boosters have gained the right to use their money to influence who plays for their school of choice in a way they never could before. There is simply no way in hell they are giving that right up. None. Just like Ukraine isn't giving up its sovereignty and women aren't giving up their right to privacy.OF, I think it is very, very hard to justify the idea boosters had anything at all to do with the Supreme Court declaring that the NCAA couldn't restrain trade. Yes, they boosters perhaps had a serendipity that increase their power, but the idea they are organized and wedded to that concept is not in evidence. It was not and is not an organized movement with a specific goal. Changing the NIL system yet again is not likely to change that. No comparison at all to the other two groups you cite.
When did I say boosters had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision? I said that given the NCAA waved the white flag on NIL (after the SCOTUS ruling), boosters gained a lot more power (rights) to influence the acquisition of talent for their team of choice and they are not giving it up.
I used examples of others not giving up things and rights as evidence of this to drive home the point. It isn't happening.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - OutsiderFan - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 01:31 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-05-2022, 12:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:Indeed you did. And I pointed out that the other examples you used were nothing at all like the situation that existed in the NIL situation. The examples you used were powers (rights) that the people involved had fought for for YEARS, against bitter opposition. As you yourself just pointed out, the NIL situation is completely different. The boosters are the beneficiaries of a SCOTUS ruling that they had no part of. Your examples are therefore manifestly irrelevant.(05-05-2022, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-05-2022, 09:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Boosters have gained the right to use their money to influence who plays for their school of choice in a way they never could before. There is simply no way in hell they are giving that right up. None. Just like Ukraine isn't giving up its sovereignty and women aren't giving up their right to privacy.OF, I think it is very, very hard to justify the idea boosters had anything at all to do with the Supreme Court declaring that the NCAA couldn't restrain trade. Yes, they boosters perhaps had a serendipity that increase their power, but the idea they are organized and wedded to that concept is not in evidence. It was not and is not an organized movement with a specific goal. Changing the NIL system yet again is not likely to change that. No comparison at all to the other two groups you cite.
When did I say boosters had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision? I said that given the NCAA waved the white flag on NIL (after the SCOTUS ruling), boosters gained a lot more power (rights) to influence the acquisition of talent for their team of choice and they are not giving it up.
I used examples of others not giving up things and rights as evidence of this to drive home the point. It isn't happening.
This isn't hard. If I give something to you that you want, and I try to take it back, you will be loathe to give it back to me. My dogs do this too, so it's not a behavior limited to humans, which strengthens my point and the other examples used to support it.
Boosters have power now that they didn't have a year ago. They aren't giving it back.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - Goose - 05-05-2022
(05-05-2022, 01:55 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: This isn't hard. If I give something to you that you want, and I try to take it back, you will be loathe to give it back to me. My dogs do this too, so it's not a behavior limited to humans, which strengthens my point and the other examples used to support it.So boosters are like your dog? You might have a point here if you had a way to establish that boosters actually care about the new "power" that they have and that they are capable of organizing to defend it. You have attempted to establish they care by analogy with long sought civil rights by organized groups who have persevered for years to obtain. I think you realize those are different cases. Your present argument assumes the predicate. Yes, if I care, or your dog cares, they will fight for whatever you are taking back. However, if they don't, they won't. You have just assumed the boosters actually care that much. I suspect they don't. They didn't fight for this result and pretty much liked the status quo ante. In any case, you haven't demonstrated the opposite.
Boosters have power now that they didn't have a year ago. They aren't giving it back.
You also assume the "boosters" are a united group that can effectively fight for anything. While there may be individuals in this amorphous group that care and will attempt to maintain their newly-found influence, it is unclear how many and how effective they will be. From the point of view of the conferences and the football establishment, this NIL situation may be an existential crisis. These folks have a long history of organizing to protect themselves. I give them much better odds than the boosters.
RE: It's uglier than you imagined: NIL - BostonCard - 05-06-2022
I agree that the NCAA blew it. The case they lost in the US Supreme Court involved indirect educational expenses (for example money for a computer or graduate school), and the NCAA acted as if granting it would result in the end of amateurism. O’Bannon v. NCAA wouldn’t have happened had the NCAA not ripped off O’Bannon’s likeness for a video game and prohibited him from getting a penny from it. You can imagine a different scenario where they say that NIL money goes into a fund that athletes can draw from post graduation, and agrees to a modest sum for educational expenses and these things never get to the Supreme Court.
Be that as it may, it is always dangerous to extrapolate from one ruling to another and we should not assume that because the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA on a few narrow issues that it would automatically open the floodgates. Kavenough maybe (his concurrence suggested as much), but I am sure 5 justices could twist themselves into arguing that refusing to give an inch is restraint of trade but that refusing to let the boosters take a mile is not.
BC