ADVERTISEMENT

The elephant in the room.

82hoosier

All-American
Sep 7, 2001
9,600
8,031
113
I am a huge CTA fan. But SCOTUS has now pulled the curtain back and exposed some of the hypocrisy of college football. But this also tarnishes the concept of a LEO.

IMO, this is going to get pretty awkward.

Thoughts?
 
What does one have do with the other?

Referring to the possibility of one player making more money than another possibly causing hurt feelings?
 
I am a huge CTA fan. But SCOTUS has now pulled the curtain back and exposed some of the hypocrisy of college football. But this also tarnishes the concept of a LEO.

IMO, this is going to get pretty awkward.

Thoughts?
It doesn't "tarnish" the LEO concept in the least but if these laws create a haves and have nots demographic on a roster then I think TA is as good a guy as any to manage the culture.
 
This is a very slippery slope. To ve honest I've always been a little bit squeamish about the term student-athletes. But now they are transitioning to becoming employees.
And it has now been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

I would not be surprised is the mantra does not shift from LEO to SHOW ME THE MONEY!!
 
I think this ruling was specific as to broadening benefits allowable related to education, so there could be more robust educational offerings (guaranteeing athletes getting initial scholarships get to keep those for life. for example, even if they want to change majors a dozen times, or the scholarship includes grad payment for grad school if chosen, or free computers to help with their educational pursuits, etc. The fundamental idea was that players oftentimes really don't get anything of value from universities by the time they leave. SCOTUS in this ruling, thought the athletes should get tangible compensation, not a promise. However, Kavanaugh left the door open for further pay for play depending on future suits. So a good bet would be on future expansion of what universities can pay athletes for (monthly stipends for expenses, transportation, etc.beyond just the tuition, room and board, books).

SCOTUS almost always tries to rule on the narrowest grounds possible. But clearly, potentially, this will set up an even better advantage for extremely large revenue programs (OSU, PSU, Michigan) in the BIG. What will be more important going forward, I believe, are fans in the stands and stadium revenue. IU with a small stadium (relatively) and few sellouts will be disadvantaged.

For Dolson/Allen the new paradigm will be preparing to maximize allowable benefits of NIL for players and, I think, maximizing stadium attendance and Memorial Stadium revenue (increase stadium capacity, maximizing ticket sales, maximizing naming rights?, etc.). I'm not sure if given what it will cost potentially for players in the future, IU can compete without 65,000 seats with most filled for all home games. Obviously to do that, IU has to win, win consistently, and challenge for championships and major bowls or placement in the expanded college football playoffs as proposed.

Luckily, the 2022 recruiting class looks pretty solid so far and hopefully a few more four stars will choose IU in the coming days/weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
I think this ruling was specific as to broadening benefits allowable related to education, so there could be more robust educational offerings (guaranteeing athletes getting initial scholarships get to keep those for life. for example, even if they want to change majors a dozen times, or the scholarship includes grad payment for grad school if chosen, or free computers to help with their educational pursuits, etc. The fundamental idea was that players oftentimes really don't get anything of value from universities by the time they leave. SCOTUS in this ruling, thought the athletes should get tangible compensation, not a promise. However, Kavanaugh left the door open for further pay for play depending on future suits. So a good bet would be on future expansion of what universities can pay athletes for (monthly stipends for expenses, transportation, etc.beyond just the tuition, room and board, books).

SCOTUS almost always tries to rule on the narrowest grounds possible. But clearly, potentially, this will set up an even better advantage for extremely large revenue programs (OSU, PSU, Michigan) in the BIG. What will be more important going forward, I believe, are fans in the stands and stadium revenue. IU with a small stadium (relatively) and few sellouts will be disadvantaged.

For Dolson/Allen the new paradigm will be preparing to maximize allowable benefits of NIL for players and, I think, maximizing stadium attendance and Memorial Stadium revenue (increase stadium capacity, maximizing ticket sales, maximizing naming rights?, etc.). I'm not sure if given what it will cost potentially for players in the future, IU can compete without 65,000 seats with most filled for all home games. Obviously to do that, IU has to win, win consistently, and challenge for championships and major bowls or placement in the expanded college football playoffs as proposed.

Luckily, the 2022 recruiting class looks pretty solid so far and hopefully a few more four stars will choose IU in the coming days/weeks.
IU has the advantage of a large, connected and affluent alumni base. The outreach programs for fundraising will double down and soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
ADVERTISEMENT