Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

US Supreme Court ruling about NCAA “pay”


Mama Sue
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Mama Sue said:

How will this  affect recruiting? It seems the NCAA can call the shots….  some are calling it the “Lamborghini Rule.”

It won't. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the NCAA DI Council voted to recommend to its board of directors to “ adopt an interim policy that would suspend amateurism rules related to name, image, snd likeness.” Sounds like it will be up to each school to implement their own policies. The NCAA policy “leaves in place the commitment to avoid pay-for-play and improper indictments tied to choosing to attend a particular school.”   
Yea, right…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mama Sue said:

Now the NCAA DI Council voted to recommend to its board of directors to “ adopt an interim policy that would suspend amateurism rules related to name, image, snd likeness.” Sounds like it will be up to each school to implement their own policies. The NCAA policy “leaves in place the commitment to avoid pay-for-play and improper indictments tied to choosing to attend a particular school.”   
Yea, right…..

The concept of amateurism for the stars at big time programs has always been a joke anyway. In principle I agree with the loosening of the rules but in practice it will get messy at times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yote 53 said:

So Major Junior players retain their NCAA eligibility now?

I wouldn't think so, because the schools still won't be paying players directly and NIL contracts aren't allowed to be tied to athletic performance.  (except for fcoa which is more than chl players probably get)

....from the NCAA's perspective.

Edit:  The most recent Supreme Court ruling was only about schools being allowed to provide education related expenses to athletes, such as laptops, internet, and more food, etc.  I don't think this would change the NCAA's argument against CHL players either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cratter said:

So the rich get richer.

Such as,

Nike will pay Oregon athletes.

Small guy will have harder time competing.

Slippery slope.

That is a good point, there needs to be some sort of adjusted cap for payments, I think it should act as more of a stipend for students, basically if there tuition, Housing, and meal plan is covered, then any payments should more or less be in the reasonable realm spending money, may slightly more, but not drastically above what kids are payed for on campus jobs. This would also be a way for the Money making sports to subsidize the loss leader sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

That is a good point, there needs to be some sort of adjusted cap for payments, I think it should act as more of a stipend for students, basically if there tuition, Housing, and meal plan is covered, then any payments should more or less be in the reasonable realm spending money, may slightly more, but not drastically above what kids are payed for on campus jobs. This would also be a way for the Money making sports to subsidize the loss leader sports.

Why? Some of these top level guys have legit value. Is there a cap on summer jobs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

Why? Some of these top level guys have legit value. Is there a cap on summer jobs? 

I believe there is/was. Something about "market wage."

So they couldnt pay you $100 an hour to cut lawns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

That is a good point, there needs to be some sort of adjusted cap for payments, I think it should act as more of a stipend for students, basically if there tuition, Housing, and meal plan is covered, then any payments should more or less be in the reasonable realm spending money, may slightly more, but not drastically above what kids are payed for on campus jobs. This would also be a way for the Money making sports to subsidize the loss leader sports.

Few years ago they approved giving school giving athletes "spending money" above everything school related paid for.

$2,000 to $5,000.

This is more money for athletes now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cratter said:

I believe there is/was. Something about "market wage."

So they couldnt pay you $100 an hour to cut lawns.

$20/hour to turn the automatic sprinklers on and off.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, petey23 said:

$20/hour to turn the automatic sprinklers on and off.

And people who work for MN DOT and hold stop signs for construction make more than registered nurses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

For non athletes? Doubtful. 

There is no or ever was a cap on earned income for regular students. How did you get that out of my post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bison73 said:

There is no or ever was a cap on earned income for regular students. How did you get that out of my post?

I’m saying that my point is that athletes should not be limited in their income because regular students are not limited in how much they can earn for their work. If they have a special skill, they can earn a lot. Same should be true for the top level athletes. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2021 at 3:53 PM, Cratter said:

So the rich get richer.

Such as,

Nike will pay Oregon athletes.

Small guy will have harder time competing.

Slippery slope.

On one hand parity is nice to see who's the best within a set criteria, ostarine and all.  However, on the other hand is now the Wild West of college football.  If a team like SMU wants to win a Natty, like in 1981 - 1982 time frame (yes, SMU) then so be it.  The roofs now blown off college football, expect some new powerhouse teams to emerge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, gundy1124 said:

On one hand parity is nice to see who's the best within a set criteria, ostarine and all.  However, on the other hand is now the Wild West of college football.  If a team like SMU wants to win a Natty, like in 1981 - 1982 time frame (yes, SMU) then so be it.  The roofs now blown off college football, expect some new powerhouse teams to emerge.

That’s a fun game to play. Which program will rise like crazy out of nowhere in the next couple years? If it’s not a blue blood don’t be surprised if the rule all of a sudden changes.

I’ll go with North Texas and Illinois as my dark horses.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...