Do the legal cases that spawned NIL cover high school athletes; I read it as no?

[uihawk82]

I stated this argument in the Jacobs$ thread when someone posted that Proctor has a $2 million NIL offer to go somewhere, probably Oregon.

I thought and read that all the legal cases a lawsuits that went up to the Supreme Court were covering currently enrolled college athletes. Proctor and other high schoolers who have not enrolled and even to the extent have not played college sports is not covered by those legal rulings as far as I can tell. So the current rules for recruiting high schoolers have very strict rules including boosters and schools not being able to give money to these kids.

I just dont see why this NIL to high schoolers is not causing sanctions on schools.

Historically, there were 100+ scholarships for teams and those teams were allowed to have many walk-ons and from what I remember schools like Nebby and maybe Bama and the big boy schools would have county booster clubs raise money and pay kids to walk on at their school. And that was legal way back and it caused the big schools to hoard all the better players. The scholarship limits were dropped twice and now down to 85 or so and the process to boosters paying kids to walk on was halted. This action plus so many games on tv have left it so schools like Nebby couldnt hoard every kid in their state.

If I could start a poll I would but do you think high schoolers are covered by the legal rulings on NIL and expense money for post-grad athletes?

 

[bumpstock]

"Across the country, Tennessee now becomes the 22nd state with a high school athletic association that authorizes NIL deals to athletes."

Tennessee approves NIL at high school level | The NIL Deal

The unanimous vote by the Legislative Council for the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association approved NIL rights for its athletes.

nildealnow.com

Much like Abortion, it appears to be a "state's right" issue.

 

[RCHdude]

I stated this argument in the Jacobs$ thread when someone posted that Proctor has a $2 million NIL offer to go somewhere, probably Oregon.

I thought and read that all the legal cases a lawsuits that went up to the Supreme Court were covering currently enrolled college athletes. Proctor and other high schoolers who have not enrolled and even to the extent have not played college sports is not covered by those legal rulings as far as I can tell. So the current rules for recruiting high schoolers have very strict rules including boosters and schools not being able to give money to these kids.

I just dont see why this NIL to high schoolers is not causing sanctions on schools.

Historically, there were 100+ scholarships for teams and those teams were allowed to have many walk-ons and from what I remember schools like Nebby and maybe Bama and the big boy schools would have county booster clubs raise money and pay kids to walk on at their school. And that was legal way back and it caused the big schools to hoard all the better players. The scholarship limits were dropped twice and now down to 85 or so and the process to boosters paying kids to walk on was halted. This action plus so many games on tv have left it so schools like Nebby couldnt hoard every kid in their state.

If I could start a poll I would but do you think high schoolers are covered by the legal rulings on NIL and expense money for post-grad athletes?

There was never a federal case on NIL.

 

[bumpstock]

There was never a federal case on NIL.

141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) is a federal case...

 

[RCHdude]

141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) is a federal case...

That case wasn't about NIL. It was about the NCAA trying to limit academic benefits for athletes. There were caps on things like how much a university could cover the costs of books or materials etc or for any academic monetary awards.

 

[bumpstock]

That case wasn't about NIL. It was about the NCAA trying to limit academic benefits for athletes. There were caps on things like how much a university could cover the costs of books or materials etc or for any academic monetary awards.

You're wrong. Spin it to your liking, but you'll still be wrong.

 

[RCHdude]

You're wrong. Spin it to your liking, but you'll still be wrong.

Um no. I am not spinning anything. These are facts. The NIL changes came about mostly because states started passing laws allowing NIL, the NCAA sat on their hands and did nothing and then that ruling came down from the Supreme Court which left open the possibility of changing other NCAA rules based on their reading of anti-trust laws so the NCAA said ok we will allow NIL. But the Supreme Court case was not about NIL.
Maybe you should read the actual cases and the ruling before acting like you know what you are talking about.

 

[bumpstock]

Um no. I am not spinning anything. These are facts. The NIL changes came about mostly because states started passing laws allowing NIL, the NCAA sat on their hands and did nothing and then that ruling came down from the Supreme Court which left open the possibility of changing other NCAA rules based on their reading of anti-trust laws so the NCAA said ok we will allow NIL. But the Supreme Court case was not about NIL.
Maybe you should read the actual cases and the ruling before acting like you know what you are talking about.

It's implied...

 

[nu2u]

That case wasn't about NIL. It was about the NCAA trying to limit academic benefits for athletes. There were caps on things like how much a university could cover the costs of books or materials etc or for any academic monetary awards.

NIL was not specifically at issue in NCAA v. Alston but Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, speaking for a clear majority of the court, made it clear to the litigants that anti-trust law would prohibit restrictions against student-athlete NIL compensation. So you are technically correct but misrepresent the practical legal effect of the ruling.

The NCAA got the message. Shortly after Alston was decided, the NCAA voted to allow a student athlete to receive compensation in exchange for use of their name, image, and likeness.

 

[bumpstock]

Um no. I am not spinning anything. These are facts. The NIL changes came about mostly because states started passing laws allowing NIL, the NCAA sat on their hands and did nothing and then that ruling came down from the Supreme Court which left open the possibility of changing other NCAA rules based on their reading of anti-trust laws so the NCAA said ok we will allow NIL. But the Supreme Court case was not about NIL.
Maybe you should read the actual cases and the ruling before acting like you know what you are talking about.

"...NCAA said ok we will allow NIL." ~ You're nuts; nobody asked the NCAA's permission.

 

[bumpstock]

NIL was not specifically at issue in NCAA v. Alston but Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, speaking for a clear majority of the court, made it clear to the litigants that anti-trust law would prohibit restrictions against student-athlete NIL compensation. So you are technically correct but misrepresent the practical legal effect of the ruling.

The NCAA got the message. Shortly after Alston was decided, the NCAA voted to allow a student athlete to receive compensation in exchange for use of their name, image, and likeness NCAA got the message. Shortly after Alston was decided, the NCAA voted to allow a student athlete to receive compensation in exchange for use of their name, image, and likeness

"...the NCAA voted to allow..." Wasn't that sweet of them? They didn't dare not do it! The NCAA is impotent.

 

[RCHdude]

It's implied...

Yeah, they say their ruling opens to the door to future challenges because their are anti-trust concerns with more NCAA regs but again. That case wasn't about NIL. NCAA didn't have to change their rules but they did because they again, most states started passing laws allowing it and then the ruling came down and they didn't want to go through another lengthy battle in which they could lose. However, they could still place rules on certain things that would be able to be upheld in courts but they are just choosing to do nothing.

 

[RCHdude]

"...NCAA said ok we will allow NIL." ~ You're nuts; nobody asked the NCAA's permission.

You are an idiot.

 

[bumpstock]

You are an idiot.

Now you're wrong multiple times.

 

[bumpstock]

NIL was not specifically at issue in NCAA v. Alston but Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, speaking for a clear majority of the court, made it clear to the litigants that anti-trust law would prohibit restrictions against student-athlete NIL compensation. So you are technically correct but misrepresent the practical legal effect of the ruling.

The NCAA got the message. Shortly after Alston was decided, the NCAA voted to allow a student athlete to receive compensation in exchange for use of their name, image, and likeness.

"...but misrepresent the practical legal effect of the ruling." = Spin.

 

[Bulldog64]

It's allowed. Or at least each state has adopted its own regulations. Iowa did theirs right after the case
https://www.iahsaa.org/handbook/name-image-likeness-guidance/

 

[RCHdude]

Now you're wrong multiple times.

Still right, moron.

 

[uihawk82]

"Across the country, Tennessee now becomes the 22nd state with a high school athletic association that authorizes NIL deals to athletes."

Tennessee approves NIL at high school level | The NIL Deal

The unanimous vote by the Legislative Council for the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association approved NIL rights for its athletes.

nildealnow.com

Much like Abortion, it appears to be a "state's right" issue.

Did you read that article you posted? First there is no mention of them getting NIL deals from a school of higher education. It also says they cannot engage in NIL activities based on their on-field performance. So tell me you think effing Oregon or some school boosters are giving Proctor $2 million in NIL for his grades in speech class? Hell no they are not!! The colleges and or boosters are paying NIL money for high school football performance which once again is nowhere in any of these college athlete's level lawsuits and legal rulings up to SCOTUS.

"There are requirements for athletes who compete in the TSSAA. They are not allowed to engage in NIL activities that directly involve their on-field performance. In addition, the TSSAA and member schools are not allowed to be involved, and athletes are not permitted to use their association marks or school during NIL promotions and activities."

 

[bumpstock]

Did you read that article you posted? First there is no mention of them getting NIL deals from a school of higher education. It also says they cannot engage in NIL activities based on their on-field performance. So tell me you think effing Oregon or some school boosters are giving Proctor $2 million in NIL for his grades in speech class? Hell no they are not!! The colleges and or boosters are paying NIL money for high school football performance which once again is nowhere in any of these college athlete's level lawsuits and legal rulings up to SCOTUS.

"There are requirements for athletes who compete in the TSSAA. They are not allowed to engage in NIL activities that directly involve their on-field performance. In addition, the TSSAA and member schools are not allowed to be involved, and athletes are not permitted to use their association marks or school during NIL promotions and activities."

"The colleges and or boosters are paying NIL money for high school football performance..."

Your quote, you own it ~ Now, prove it.

 

[RCHdude]

NIL was not specifically at issue in NCAA v. Alston but Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, speaking for a clear majority of the court, made it clear to the litigants that anti-trust law would prohibit restrictions against student-athlete NIL compensation. So you are technically correct but misrepresent the practical legal effect of the ruling.

The NCAA got the message. Shortly after Alston was decided, the NCAA voted to allow a student athlete to receive compensation in exchange for use of their name, image, and likeness.

I am not misrepresenting anything. The case didn't rule on NIL. Nor could they as it was not before the court. Yes, Kavanaugh specifically brought up that other NCAA regulation could be violating anti-trust principles but he wrote a separate concurrence in which no one else joined. And the NCAA rule they did say was subject to the rule of reason test they also said the NCAA and conferences could put restrictions on educated related benefits as long as it complied with the rule of reason. So it wasn't an outright prohibition.
Could the entire court have struck down any bar on NIL? Yes. But again. It is a fact that no court case struck down NCAA regs on NIL.

 

[nu2u]

I am not misrepresenting anything. The case didn't rule on NIL. Nor could they as it was not before the court. Yes, Kavanaugh specifically brought up that other NCAA regulation could be violating anti-trust principles but he wrote a separate concurrence in which no one else joined. And the NCAA rule they did say was subject to the rule of reason test they also said the NCAA and conferences could put restrictions on educated related benefits as long as it complied with the rule of reason. So it wasn't an outright prohibition.
Could the entire court have struck down any bar on NIL? Yes. But again. It is a fact that no court case struck down NCAA regs on NIL.

No need to be hyper technical. As I stated, you misrepresented the practical legal effect of the decision. That's pretty obvious. Good day.