Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#21

Post by yupper32 »

triceratops wrote: post #15
yupper32 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would end up killing a bunch of smaller sports, and hurting the larger ones. NCAA covers a massive number of sports. The vast majority of those who go pro in any US sport, first go through an NCAA team. Think about a scenario in the current world: You're a pretty good golf player in high school. You commit to Stanford for golf and a degree in some STEM field. The school already has a system in place to make sure…

Sounds like that's a problem for the pro sports leagues to solve. They have the money to do it, so they'll be fine. Baseball does an adequate job with its system of minor league teams. Pretty much every other country in the world manages to have professional sports leagues without having universities be their feeder teams. Even in your scenario, there's nothing stopping the aspiring golfer from attending Stanford par…

NBA? Sure. NFL? Yeah. They can probably fund and figure out the logistics for an operation like this.

What about all the other sports? At the moment, we've figured out a way to elevate less lucrative sports like track & field or swimming into a potential profession without making young people take massive risks by skipping higher education.

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#22

Post by slg »

chadash wrote: post #10
chrisseaton wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will be the absolute death of virtually every other men's sport at the college level Why's that?

In the current system, schools need to have an equivalent number of sports teams (and slots) for men and women, with the same number of scholarships (the law governing this is called Title IX). Generally speaking, women's sports don't bring in money for schools, whereas football at a competitive school will bring in money in the form of TV deals and even donations from alumni. So essentially, the football and basketb…

>If you had to pay the athletes in these sports, then there'd be less money to go around for other teams that don't generate revenue.

This relies on the assumption that sports are somehow separate from a school's educational mission and therefore must be funded by the profit from other sports. There are a maximum of only 2 or 3 dozen athletic departments that are self sufficient in the manner you suggest. The rest fund sports the same way they fund any other extracurricular activity.

I'm not sure we should require sports to fund themselves when we don't have that requirement on something like a drama or music departments. The understudy in a school play is probably no more likely to make a career out of acting than the backup QB is to make a career out of football, so why do we pretend one is a worthwhile academic pursuit and one isn't?

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#23

Post by triceratops »

yupper32 wrote: post #21
triceratops wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like that's a problem for the pro sports leagues to solve. They have the money to do it, so they'll be fine. Baseball does an adequate job with its system of minor league teams. Pretty much every other country in the world manages to have professional sports leagues without having universities be their feeder teams. Even in your scenario, there's nothing stopping the aspiring golfer from attending Stanford par…

NBA? Sure. NFL? Yeah. They can probably fund and figure out the logistics for an operation like this. What about all the other sports? At the moment, we've figured out a way to elevate less lucrative sports like track & field or swimming into a potential profession without making young people take massive risks by skipping higher education.

How do countries that are "not the US" produce swimmers or track and field athletes?

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#24

Post by crooked-v »

Scaevolus wrote: post #2

Alternate headline: "Supreme Court unanimously sides with former college players in dispute with NCAA about compensation" (from ESPN). Note that this is a narrow ruling about the NCAA limiting educational compensation and what scholarships can encompass-- but some justices gave indications that they disagree with the NCAA compensation restrictions at large.

The oral arguments stage made it pretty clear that none of the justices were buying the NCAA lawyers' arguments in general. It really makes me feel that the only reason this judgment didn't explicitly open the field for giving student athletes a salary was that the justices wanted to give schools some time to adapt instead of completely blowing up the current system all at once.

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#25

Post by jldugger »

yupper32 wrote: post #21
triceratops wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like that's a problem for the pro sports leagues to solve. They have the money to do it, so they'll be fine. Baseball does an adequate job with its system of minor league teams. Pretty much every other country in the world manages to have professional sports leagues without having universities be their feeder teams. Even in your scenario, there's nothing stopping the aspiring golfer from attending Stanford par…

NBA? Sure. NFL? Yeah. They can probably fund and figure out the logistics for an operation like this. What about all the other sports? At the moment, we've figured out a way to elevate less lucrative sports like track & field or swimming into a potential profession without making young people take massive risks by skipping higher education.

NBA? Sure. NFL? Yeah. They can probably fund and figure out the logistics for an operation like this. What about all the other sports?

I'm really struggling to come up with a reason this is the academy's problem to solve.

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#26

Post by Loughla »

slg wrote: post #22
chadash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current system, schools need to have an equivalent number of sports teams (and slots) for men and women, with the same number of scholarships (the law governing this is called Title IX). Generally speaking, women's sports don't bring in money for schools, whereas football at a competitive school will bring in money in the form of TV deals and even donations from alumni. So essentially, the football and basketb…

>If you had to pay the athletes in these sports, then there'd be less money to go around for other teams that don't generate revenue. This relies on the assumption that sports are somehow separate from a school's educational mission and therefore must be funded by the profit from other sports. There are a maximum of only 2 or 3 dozen athletic departments that are self sufficient in the manner you suggest. The rest fu…

Your math doesn't work out here. I can't major in football, I absolutely can major in drama and/or music. From my experience, club sports and clubs such as the theater club are funded via student fees, whereas departmental projects such as drama and music are funded via tuition.

In theory, the major areas are self-funding because of the tuition costs.

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#27

Post by yupper32 »

drewg123 wrote: post #16
yupper32 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would end up killing a bunch of smaller sports, and hurting the larger ones. NCAA covers a massive number of sports. The vast majority of those who go pro in any US sport, first go through an NCAA team. Think about a scenario in the current world: You're a pretty good golf player in high school. You commit to Stanford for golf and a degree in some STEM field. The school already has a system in place to make sure…

Given that college sports mostly loose money for schools[1], why do we think its OK to ask students and (for public colleges) taxpayers to subsidize professional sports' feeder system? I went to a large state school (SUNY Buffalo) where the administration wanted to go division 1 when I was there in the early 90s. Transitioning to division 1 came along with a large (to us) mandatory athletic fee. The student body vote…

So in-state tuition at UB would be around $4850 instead of $5200 without sports. Out-of-state would be around $13,750 vs $14,100.

Would life be significantly better without sports at UB, if students were given back a few hundred dollars? Would alumni donations go down without the occasional March Madness appearance? Or Bulls games?

When people make this argument, they make it seem like schools would all of a sudden be able to afford a massively better educational experience. That's just not the case.

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#28

Post by ecshafer »

yupper32 wrote: post #27
drewg123 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that college sports mostly loose money for schools[1], why do we think its OK to ask students and (for public colleges) taxpayers to subsidize professional sports' feeder system? I went to a large state school (SUNY Buffalo) where the administration wanted to go division 1 when I was there in the early 90s. Transitioning to division 1 came along with a large (to us) mandatory athletic fee. The student body vote…

So in-state tuition at UB would be around $4850 instead of $5200 without sports. Out-of-state would be around $13,750 vs $14,100. Would life be significantly better without sports at UB, if students were given back a few hundred dollars? Would alumni donations go down without the occasional March Madness appearance? Or Bulls games? When people make this argument, they make it seem like schools would all of a sudden b…

It sounds like life would be significantly better without sports. 5200 vs 4850 is $350. That is the difference of a month of rent in Buffalo for your room, snow tires on your car that year or not, text books or not.

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#29

Post by yupper32 »

ecshafer wrote: post #14
yupper32 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would end up killing a bunch of smaller sports, and hurting the larger ones. NCAA covers a massive number of sports. The vast majority of those who go pro in any US sport, first go through an NCAA team. Think about a scenario in the current world: You're a pretty good golf player in high school. You commit to Stanford for golf and a degree in some STEM field. The school already has a system in place to make sure…

So maybe we don't need so many professional sports players.

Who needs those sports balls on the television, right?

Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association vs. Alston [pdf]

#30

Post by creyes »

tl;dr in 2 quotes from the decision. Wild shit that the NCAA got this far

> The NCAA does not contest that its re-straints affect interstate trade and commerce and are thus subject to the Sherman Act.

> With this much agreed it is unclear exactly what the NCAA seeks. To the extent it means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade—that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money—we cannot agree.

Post reply on HN