US Supreme Court to hear NCAA Compensation Case

How can you or everyone else believe the supreme court now? How can we be so sure that mega conferences will not intervene to get their points approved to their advantage at the detriment of college athletes?
THAT is believing in the supreme court or not.


Can we keep it focused on the topic of NCAA Compensation? The mods have their hands full with the flaggin’ flaggers.


My take on this is they should allow athletes to make money on the side with endorsements and likeness of image but as far as the schools paying them, I disagree bc this isn’t the nfl. I agree with schools just paying a little more for additional expenses for players as in 1k or 2 k a yr. They are getting a free ride that now prob costs 75k even at public universities. Congress could do well on capping coaching salaries which is way out out of line. Having coaches make millions above what the prez of a univ makes is the problem.

1 Like

It would cost the g5 programs also and would widen the gap bc the p5 would pay more so it’s not a good policy. Your opening pandora’s box paying players. I for expanding the stipend for expenses but not paying a salary bc that salary will be all over the place.If you think it will help the g5 and the rest, let me know how them I’ll change my view. The biggest issue with athletes is that they need more spending money on the side which I agree with but it needs to be capped or simply tax revenue above expenses which would stop the arms race.UT etc could easily pay bc certain top schools kick back millions to the school then we have less a chance along with other G5’s.


I’ve said before this is going to be the Mother of All Hot Messes…bigger than the “likeness” hot mess…
Just start with taxation (Cali anyone ?) of the salaries issue…Schollies will no doubt be taxed, bringing in potentially all scholarships (academic, grant, need based)…



I think taxation of revenues above expenses would help stop this which I agree

1 Like

For the sake of programs like ours that don’t have the money to “compete” in terms of compensation with bigger ones…I hope that the USSC completely squelches this. I don’t care what legal reasoning they use, however tenuous. I just want THAT result…for UH’s sake!

1 Like

Ex if UT kicks back 10 mil to the school, they could pay their 400 athletes 25k each where we can’t and so it would add cost to our debt.

I don’t think it passes and worse case they increase a stipend.

1 Like

+1 EE - I can’t believe the arrogance and presumptiousness of RedDragon… It’s pathetic.

I adjusted my post because I have no confidence from anything coming from the P5’s. Nothing at all and surely not the supreme court voting for the athletes. Hey, I am entitled to my opinion. Fair enough?

College sports shouldn’t be in the free market. It should be controlled and capped. If they want free market then tax the revenues then let’s see. UH for ex would be at zero tax since we’re not making money. We should then be able to write off the short fall.


Hey listen, ordinarily, I believe in the free markets.

But knowing how disadvantaged my favorite program (UH) will be if the USSC doesn’t rule in a certain way…I’m willing to put all that aside, and abandon my principles.

I would hope that every true blue UH fan would.


The athletes are getting an 18k a yr free ride at least at most public universities. They just maybe need more spending money. Tuition has gone up so much that now , they are getting the benefit. I have a daughter about to go next yr and we’re bracing for student loans plus what we saved. If she was on an athletic ship I’d be so happy bc it would save the 40 to 75 k it costs to now go to college. Yrs ago it was $400 or $800 per semester. If it was still $1500 or so per semester , I’d agree with the athletes being paid more bc we could but costs have skyrocketed out of control for tuition and room and brd.

I’ve said it before, the NCAA would not be dealing with this if they evolved and adjusted. They could have gotten in front of this and kept control. It should be that players have the right to earn money off their likeness and/or get a cut when team’s use their likeness, then the NCAA could have kept true payments off the table for a couple more decades. If I am understanding this correctly, this ruling could let conferences decide to do whatever they want with compensation which would probably turn out pretty bad. But at the end of the day, I can’t side against the players.

I can, given that they are, at least in theory, STUDENTS and AMATEURS, not professionals.

They already get more than enough “compensation” in terms of their scholarships, room, board, training facilities that aren’t open to the student body as a whole, etc.

Don’t make this something where only the P5 schools have the money to compete for recruits.

As I said…I want a RESULT that helps UH…I’ll think of the right legal reasoning/constitutional justification/philosophical basis later.


It seems that the P5 conferences are continuing to transition toward become an NFL-like semi-pro league. Soon ESPN, et al, will be paying ~$100 million per year to each of ~64 teams (likely with only 4 conferences of 16 teams each) which can then host a true 16 team playoff system like the NFL.

It seems to me that the big questions are (1) how adversely will this effect their relationships within the NCAA and (2) what will happen to (i) the 50+ FBS college FB programs that are left out, (ii) the current form of an NCAA basketball tournament, and (iii) the other now NCAA sponsored college sports.

Will the NCAA (as we now know it) even continue to exist? And how does Congress and the IRS treat these currently tax free football program profits, and how & when do they start taxing the players pay.

I look for Congress to intervene on the basis of the concepts of social justice, Title IX issues, systemic corruption, income tax regulations and a growing sense of a lack of fundamental fairness and equality.

The truth is that you can’t more clearly define or see an act of “white privilege” in America today than by watching the Boards of Directors & Presidents of many of our largest historically white state universities (like Alabama, Ohio State, Texas…) agree to pay white college head coaches ~ $7,000,000/year while their mostly uncompensated black players earn only a scholarship under the guise of amateur sports.

If DI football did indeed devolve into a semi-pro racket, then it will NOT be good for UH.

There is NO WAY UH will ever have deep enough pockets to compete in terms of “compensation” packages with what the B1G, Big 12, or SEC schools might offer recruits. Our own “honey pot” simply isn’t big enough.

The wrong kind of ruling here…will NOT be good for UH!

1 Like

I don’t think it would really change much. We only have like 4 recruits right now with P5 offers. Plus the conferences wont go wild and start paying open salaries, they will be for players making money off their image and maybe a larger stipend. Why? Because that would keep Alabama and LSU on a different level than if there was a salary cap for the conference. A player’s likeness is worth more at Alabama than Vanderbilt. Why would Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, TCU, Tech vote to allow UT and OU to pay more than they could afford?

One could argue that UH could more easily separate from the other G5 teams with the ability for players to earn money. That is the position we want to be in for any conference re-alignment or a crazy split from the NCAA where 64 programs become a league. A clear cut winner invested in football with the Houston market? That sounds like a no brainer for a new league.

1 Like

Any player demanding to be paid isn’t worth paying. If they were worth anything the last thing they would want is the compensation to be moved on top of the table and then taxed.

I am flabbergasted that none of this hasn’t morphed into a tax evasion situation.

1 Like