$2.8 Billion in back damages.

[Swamp]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...nty-new-system

You can't make this up.

[CajunVic]

Boomer, I sure hope you collect so you can have that shoulder surgery

[Turbine]

Boomer, I sure hope you collect so you can have that shoulder surgery

I think he has had the surgery.

[ZoomZoom]

They are correct…the NCAA has ridden “one shining moment” created by NCSU and Jimmy V for decades all the way to the bank.

They want their 40 years worth of cake started with the NIL Pandora’s box being opened.

Just another domino falling. College sports quickly heading to obscurity when people and their money are walking away.

Basketball will be next after football settles on the top end.

[Cajunrunner]

Somehow us and the other G5 schools will get screwed on this and the P4/5s will come out perfectly fine.

Well…maybe not the Oregon States and the East Carolinas of the P5s, but they weren’t the ones buying players for the past 30 years while the NCAA looked the other way and punished others.

[Turbine]

I don't understand "damages"

If wage compensation goes up at your job are past workers entitled to damages?

The wages for players just went up.

Just because players sued for more than just scholarships (and won) does not mean past players were damaged.

[CajunVic]

I don't understand "damages"

If wage compensation goes up at your job are past workers entitled to damages?

The wages for players just went up.

Just because players sued for more than just scholarships (and won) does not mean past players were damaged.

They were forced to play for free in violation of their constitutional right to make money . . . the NCAA did not have th right to prohibit NIL

[Turbine]

They were forced to play for free in violation of their constitutional right to make money . . . the NCAA did not have th right to prohibit NIL

That is not what the Supreme Court ruled.

Except for walk ons, they were never playing for free.

They ruled that the restrictions on college athletes only being allowed to receive "education-related benefits" violated antitrust law.

They did not rule that they were playing for free, they ruled that you cannot restrict their income.

The Supreme court did not rule that they must be paid just that they can be paid without restrictions.

[CajunVic]

That is not what the Supreme Court ruled.

Except for walk ons, they were never playing for free.

They ruled that the restrictions on college athletes only being allowed to receive "education-related benefits" violated antitrust law.

They did not rule that they were playing for free, they ruled that you cannot restrict their income.

The Supreme court did not rule that they must be paid just that they can be paid without restrictions.

So, thou who has placed the restriction in an anti trust situation must pay the damages suffered from the restrictions. That’s what is being settled now.

[Turbine]

So, thou who has placed the restriction in an anti trust situation must pay the damages suffered from the restrictions. That’s what is being settled now.

If there are damages (there are none) they need to go back to Louisiana getting the death penalty for loaning a player your car keys.