(01-12-2015 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 10:41 AM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  Because when politicians get involved there always is a better outcome....right.

The free market is working even if all of us don't like they way its working for the team we root for. Obama getting involved can only insure one thing - college football will get worse. Stay away.

While there are certainly market forces at work in college sports, to suggest that they are a free market is a gross exaggeration. They certainly aren't a free market for the players. They aren't a free market in the sense that they compete with other forms of entertainment on a level playing field. They are heavily subsidized with tax dollars, and given favorable exemption from the tax code the rest of us, and their competitors, have to live with.

It wasn't that long ago that the sums of money involved, while significant, were probably not enough to trigger a lot of lawsuits. Those sums are now being dwarfed by the massive infusion of cash by ESPN and Fox. That escalation of profits is what makes the calculus about whether to take some of these equity issues - player safety, compensation, etc. - to court very different. The ADs realize this, and I think they realize that if these issues are resolved by the courts it will not go well for them.

I think they realize that the arguments that football and basketball players are employees are a lot stronger today than the arguments that they are just students. That is a battle they just can't afford to lose in court, and they know it. They would be reckless if they didn't seek protection against that, and the only protection available is political.

It is inconceivable to me that FBS conference commissioners would be taking this step on their own. This has to be coming from the presidents of the universities they represent.

There is no scenario where the President getting involved will have a better outcome for college sports. None.

If players don't like the deal...they have choices: stop playing, go pro, or go play football/basketball in the myriad of minor leagues across the US and globe that pay players. It might not be the big pay day of say the NFL or NBA, but there are plenty of opportunities to hone your craft and get paid to do it. Do that and the door to the NFL or NBA will always be open by opportunistic franchises looking to find the right players to fill spots.

(01-12-2015 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well---true but not true. What it seems to me is that FBS P5 commissioners now realize that they will face a future of ever increasing lawsuits and specter of a massive concussion lawsuit. So now, they are willing to submit to governmental regulation in exchange for a set of guidelines that would limit thier liability (or even completely shield them from liability in some instances). The holy grail is a an anti-trust exemption.

The cost of such protection from govermment may very well be some things that actually do help the little guy (wheather that means Joe Sixpack fan, the players, or the smaller G5 schools). The reality is that the P5 give up full control when they enter into this arena---so the outcome of this process is unpredictable (but probably more predictable than courtroom battle after courtroom battle). My guess is that a cleaner game with a fairer more level playing field is coming in exchange for an antitrust exemptiion. I suspect it will look more like old time 1970's college sports in terms of the college landscape (more college like, more academic based--less professional) with a players bill of rights. Expect governmental regulation to include real enforcement power for NCAA rules (ie--real law enforcement power). No more ignoring fake classes at North Carolina resulting in no punishment. No more ignoring requests to appear.

I see what you're saying, but I'm skeptical. The 5 power conferences are about to enact all of these NCAA rules explicitly stating that they're playing by a different governance structure... but then they're going to *willingly* go to the government to take it all away? Call me crazy, but I don't believe it.

I certainly think that the concussion lawsuits are a factor, but an antitrust exemption serves one huge purpose: colleges can continue to not pay players. Those are the BIG dollars that matter over time. At the same time, that's really the only *widespread* government interest at play here. The emphasis is on *widespread* because this isn't about a pet cause of politicians from Idaho wanting more postseason access or money for Boise State or other more narrow interest (all of which ignores how much more political and public power that the 5 power conferences have by comparison, which is why they have that power in the first place). The government doesn't care about what types of classes are being taken at UNC or any other place (as evidenced by the fact that they still issue student loans for online diploma mills that create mountains of debt for worthless degrees) or 99.9% of NCAA compliance issues. That's all window-dressing for the truly powerful interest involved here.

What really matters is BIG LABOR. Big Labor is now directly involved with the college player compensation issue, and that group wields a ton of power over a huge swath of politicians (including the White House). THAT is a government interest (or maybe more accurately, a *political* interest) that matters to a whole lot more politicians than the playoff system, distribution of money among the conferences and/or NCAA authority. Adding tens of thousands of brand new union members (some of which are high profile) overnight would completely change the economics of college sports (and, depending upon which side of the political aisle someone stands on, could be enough to change the electoral calculation for swing states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina). THAT is why the conference commissioners would want to head to the White House because that's a legit outside threat that cannot be changed without the government's involvement. The courts that have been speaking on the issue are increasingly saying that the colleges are violating antitrust principles, which means that the only way that they can keep today's system is to actually change their antitrust status.

But why would the most pro-labor president in decades help them?

(01-12-2015 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there are certainly market forces at work in college sports, to suggest that they are a free market is a gross exaggeration. They certainly aren't a free market for the players. They aren't a free market in the sense that they compete with other forms of entertainment on a level playing field. They are heavily subsidized with tax dollars, and given favorable exemption from the tax code the rest of us, and their competitors, have to live with.

It wasn't that long ago that the sums of money involved, while significant, were probably not enough to trigger a lot of lawsuits. Those sums are now being dwarfed by the massive infusion of cash by ESPN and Fox. That escalation of profits is what makes the calculus about whether to take some of these equity issues - player safety, compensation, etc. - to court very different. The ADs realize this, and I think they realize that if these issues are resolved by the courts it will not go well for them.

I think they realize that the arguments that football and basketball players are employees are a lot stronger today than the arguments that they are just students. That is a battle they just can't afford to lose in court, and they know it. They would be reckless if they didn't seek protection against that, and the only protection available is political.

Right. The topic of this meeting is probably, "Mr. President, please save us from the Kessman lawsuit and make sure no one can ever sue us again."

(01-12-2015 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  But why would the most pro-labor president in decades help them?

That's the (literally) multi-billion dollar question. The conference commissioners are likely seeing the writing on the wall with the courts, so they probably see that the only chance of any movement is through the political arena even though the White House wouldn't seem to be hospitable on its face. So, it's an avenue that the commissioners *have* to try while they can. At the same time, Obama is effectively a lame duck president (which, whether people personally agree with him or not, is a sad state of how election cycles work in this country that this is the case when he won't be replaced until 2 years from now), so it might not be a bad time to try working with him. The new Congress certainly won't work with Obama and his own party has basically turned toward the 2016 election, so he's in a counterintuitive position where he can almost do more right now since he's free of having to answer to anyone politically at this point (as he's not running for re-election, he doesn't have to be cautious with respect to the Democratic midterm elections like he was last year, and his popularity ratings are so low that he doesn't even care about them anymore).

If the colleges are seeing a potential avalanche coming down the pike of needing to pay players if they don't do anything, they might at least be able to slow it down even though it means working with someone like Obama who probably has a different political motive. Like I've said, it might be their only option at this point.

So this is why the administration couldn't send a high ranking member to be the official representative of the American people at the memorial service in France. They were all too busy with the most pressing domestic matter to come along in a generation. A meeting with the NCAA over college sports. Whatever comes out of this will surely rival the New Deal or the Great Society in significance.

(01-12-2015 08:34 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 08:21 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  Words to be feared. "I'm with the government, I'm here to help". I mean seriously, the health care rollout went so well, they decided to work on college sports? Brilliant.

And in other news, mail arrived on time, planes landed safely (in this country at least), and we can be pretty confident that the food we buy from the grocery store is safe to eat.




But, point taken.

Cause UPS and FEDex don't work. Airlines like to crash and piss away billion dollar pieces of machinery as well as kill current customers while pushing future ones to rival companies. Nothing builds a customer base like poisoning them so the government needs to protect the stupid people form buying poisened food over and over again. Not too mention lawsuits are impossible in this country regarding consumer protection against bad companies.

Governments makes thing worst for consumers by limiting competition to a select few with possibly bad actors controlling the market place because of political connections. Crash a plane in the US and consumers have other airlines to choose from plus litigation for damages. Crash a plane in Russia and its Putin's buddy's airline or you don't fly.

(01-12-2015 09:54 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If you like your college atheltics, you can keep your college athletics.

hehe... yeah, I know. And I agree with the sentiment. Even having said what I said about desiring to see some accountability as one expects in the instance of any other commmercial venture in the US economy, I'm reticent to see anything happen under this most-transparent *wink* administration ever.

(01-12-2015 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I see what you're saying, but I'm skeptical. The 5 power conferences are about to enact all of these NCAA rules explicitly stating that they're playing by a different governance structure... but then they're going to *willingly* go to the government to take it all away? Call me crazy, but I don't believe it.

I certainly think that the concussion lawsuits are a factor, but an antitrust exemption serves one huge purpose: colleges can continue to not pay players. Those are the BIG dollars that matter over time. At the same time, that's really the only *widespread* government interest at play here. The emphasis is on *widespread* because this isn't about a pet cause of politicians from Idaho wanting more postseason access or money for Boise State or other more narrow interest (all of which ignores how much more political and public power that the 5 power conferences have by comparison, which is why they have that power in the first place). The government doesn't care about what types of classes are being taken at UNC or any other place (as evidenced by the fact that they still issue student loans for online diploma mills that create mountains of debt for worthless degrees) or 99.9% of NCAA compliance issues. That's all window-dressing for the truly powerful interest involved here.

What really matters is BIG LABOR. Big Labor is now directly involved with the college player compensation issue, and that group wields a ton of power over a huge swath of politicians (including the White House). THAT is a government interest (or maybe more accurately, a *political* interest) that matters to a whole lot more politicians than the playoff system, distribution of money among the conferences and/or NCAA authority. Adding tens of thousands of brand new union members (some of which are high profile) overnight would completely change the economics of college sports (and, depending upon which side of the political aisle someone stands on, could be enough to change the electoral calculation for swing states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina). THAT is why the conference commissioners would want to head to the White House because that's a legit outside threat that cannot be changed without the government's involvement. The courts that have been speaking on the issue are increasingly saying that the colleges are violating antitrust principles, which means that the only way that they can keep today's system is to actually change their antitrust status.

In my opinion, the number one thing the P5 conference are scared of right now are lawsuits aimed at destroying the ameraturism model.

I believe that is what they'll go to any length to preserve.

Because if they're unsuccessful, I think some conferences will scortch the earth rather than submit -- for example, I believe the Big Ten will revert to a Ivy League model rather than having to pay its players.

(01-12-2015 02:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I see what you're saying, but I'm skeptical. The 5 power conferences are about to enact all of these NCAA rules explicitly stating that they're playing by a different governance structure... but then they're going to *willingly* go to the government to take it all away? Call me crazy, but I don't believe it.

I certainly think that the concussion lawsuits are a factor, but an antitrust exemption serves one huge purpose: colleges can continue to not pay players. Those are the BIG dollars that matter over time. At the same time, that's really the only *widespread* government interest at play here. The emphasis is on *widespread* because this isn't about a pet cause of politicians from Idaho wanting more postseason access or money for Boise State or other more narrow interest (all of which ignores how much more political and public power that the 5 power conferences have by comparison, which is why they have that power in the first place). The government doesn't care about what types of classes are being taken at UNC or any other place (as evidenced by the fact that they still issue student loans for online diploma mills that create mountains of debt for worthless degrees) or 99.9% of NCAA compliance issues. That's all window-dressing for the truly powerful interest involved here.

What really matters is BIG LABOR. Big Labor is now directly involved with the college player compensation issue, and that group wields a ton of power over a huge swath of politicians (including the White House). THAT is a government interest (or maybe more accurately, a *political* interest) that matters to a whole lot more politicians than the playoff system, distribution of money among the conferences and/or NCAA authority. Adding tens of thousands of brand new union members (some of which are high profile) overnight would completely change the economics of college sports (and, depending upon which side of the political aisle someone stands on, could be enough to change the electoral calculation for swing states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina). THAT is why the conference commissioners would want to head to the White House because that's a legit outside threat that cannot be changed without the government's involvement. The courts that have been speaking on the issue are increasingly saying that the colleges are violating antitrust principles, which means that the only way that they can keep today's system is to actually change their antitrust status.

In my opinion, the number one thing the P5 conference are scared of right now are lawsuits aimed at destroying the ameraturism model.

I believe that is what they'll go to any length to preserve.

Because if they're unsuccessful, I think some conferences will scortch the earth rather than submit -- for example, I believe the Big Ten will revert to a Ivy League model rather than having to pay its players.

We can only hope. But as desirable an outcome as that might be, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

(01-12-2015 02:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  We can only hope. But as desirable an outcome as that might be, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Are you saying you don't believe it will ever get to that point? Or are you saying you don't believe that the Big Ten would follow through on that threat if it did get to that point?

I believe with 99% certainty that they would follow through. However, I'm skeptical that we'll see it get to that point - ie, the outright collapse of the current commercialization structure of college football. Too many dollars being taken out of too many pockets.

(01-12-2015 02:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 02:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  We can only hope. But as desirable an outcome as that might be, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Are you saying you don't believe it will ever get to that point? Or are you saying you don't believe that the Big Ten would follow through on that threat if it did get to that point?

I believe with 99% certainty that they would follow through. However, I'm skeptical that we'll see it get to that point - ie, the outright collapse of the current commercialization structure of college football. Too many dollars being taken out of too many pockets.

I don't believe it would ever get to that point. There's too much money at stake for too many people who don't have the interest of either the schools or students as their top priority.

(01-12-2015 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe it would ever get to that point. There's too much money at stake for too many people who don't have the interest of either the schools or students as their top priority.

Heh, "top" priority.

People whose livlihoods are tied to bowl games, the CFP or college football television programming literally spend zero seconds of their year thinking about academics.

(01-12-2015 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 09:18 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  "Save" college sports? From what?

College sports are more popular today than they have ever been. Use any metric you want: attendance, money, number of athletes, and graduation rates of athletes. Look at how many gold medal winners from OTHER countries train in our college sports programs. American college athletics is the gold standard.

What bold new paradigm threatens this? And don't say "money" or "academic scandals" because these have been irritants in the sport for 80 years. We've dealt with it before without involving the awesome extrajudicial power of the feds; what makes the situation different now?

They need to save college sports from governmental control!

This will not turn out well for college sports if anything comes of it.

If the government is getting involved, it should be about the concussion issue.

But it's not. It's all about the Benjamins.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars of interstate commerce and institutions of higher education...Yes, I think the government should have some roll to play in things.

(01-12-2015 03:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 09:18 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  "Save" college sports? From what?

College sports are more popular today than they have ever been. Use any metric you want: attendance, money, number of athletes, and graduation rates of athletes. Look at how many gold medal winners from OTHER countries train in our college sports programs. American college athletics is the gold standard.

What bold new paradigm threatens this? And don't say "money" or "academic scandals" because these have been irritants in the sport for 80 years. We've dealt with it before without involving the awesome extrajudicial power of the feds; what makes the situation different now?

They need to save college sports from governmental control!

This will not turn out well for college sports if anything comes of it.

If the government is getting involved, it should be about the concussion issue.

But it's not. It's all about the Benjamins.

The concussion issue isn't, ultimately, "about the Benjamins?"

(01-12-2015 03:42 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm sorry, but we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars of interstate commerce and institutions of higher education...Yes, I think the government should have some roll to play in things.

Should the federal govenment install a barrier to shield the current commercialization structure of college football from lawsuits which aim to break up the ametuerism model and enable players to be directly paid for their athletic performances?

My guess is that's the "plan B". If it looks like the NCAA won't win in the courts, they'll run to the government and offer them a cut (ie, they'll start paying taxes on the revenue) in exchange for protection.

(01-12-2015 03:42 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm sorry, but we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars of interstate commerce and institutions of higher education...Yes, I think the government should have some roll to play in things.

We already have enough government regulation and oversight by existing entities. No need to desire more. I have full confidence our Republican congress will deposit all these ideas where they belong - stuck in the committee backlog.

(01-12-2015 03:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:42 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm sorry, but we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars of interstate commerce and institutions of higher education...Yes, I think the government should have some roll to play in things.

Should the federal govenment install a barrier to shield the current commercialization structure of college football from lawsuits which aim to break up the ametuerism model and enable players to be directly paid for their athletic performances?

My guess is that's the "plan B". If it looks like the NCAA won't win in the courts, they'll run to the government and offer them a cut (ie, they'll start paying taxes on the revenue) in exchange for protection.

I don't think this is plan B for the schools. I think it's plan A. I think they realize that they don't hold the winning hand on the legal issues, and their only chance is to change the laws. At the moment, the only thing keeping the IRS from interpreting the laws for the business of college sports the same way they interpret them for every other business is the fiction that college sports are part of the tax exempt educational purpose of the schools. That fiction has held up so far because nobody with enough influence has stood up and said "but the emperor has no clothes". Well, that plus the fact that boosters of college sports tend to be the same people that contribute to political campaigns.

Those politicians and their supporters have been able to hide in the tall grass for a long time. But all these lawsuits are threatening to be a lawn mower. Politicians can tolerate a lot of things, but not being laughed at. For them, changing the laws (and not relying on just the opinions of a government agency to stay unchanged in the face of public pressure) is the way to change the subject. The P5 schools have already shown they are willing to pay a lot of money to keep the status quo. They didn't cut the G5 in on all that CFP money out of the goodness of their hearts.

They are scared, and they have every right to be. Their only hope is that this isn't too little, too late.

Grandstanding.

(01-12-2015 04:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 03:42 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm sorry, but we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars of interstate commerce and institutions of higher education...Yes, I think the government should have some roll to play in things.

Should the federal govenment install a barrier to shield the current commercialization structure of college football from lawsuits which aim to break up the ametuerism model and enable players to be directly paid for their athletic performances?

My guess is that's the "plan B". If it looks like the NCAA won't win in the courts, they'll run to the government and offer them a cut (ie, they'll start paying taxes on the revenue) in exchange for protection.

I don't think this is plan B for the schools. I think it's plan A. I think they realize that they don't hold the winning hand on the legal issues, and their only chance is to change the laws. At the moment, the only thing keeping the IRS from interpreting the laws for the business of college sports the same way they interpret them for every other business is the fiction that college sports are part of the tax exempt educational purpose of the schools. That fiction has held up so far because nobody with enough influence has stood up and said "but the emperor has no clothes". Well, that plus the fact that boosters of college sports tend to be the same people that contribute to political campaigns.

Those politicians and their supporters have been able to hide in the tall grass for a long time. But all these lawsuits are threatening to be a lawn mower. Politicians can tolerate a lot of things, but not being laughed at. For them, changing the laws (and not relying on just the opinions of a government agency to stay unchanged in the face of public pressure) is the way to change the subject. The P5 schools have already shown they are willing to pay a lot of money to keep the status quo. They didn't cut the G5 in on all that CFP money out of the goodness of their hearts.

They are scared, and they have every right to be. Their only hope is that this isn't too little, too late.

The flaw with your logic is that the President doesn't change laws - Congress does. And if the hope is the President will use his bully pulpit to urge Congress to change the laws after meeting with educational stakeholders...well I'd say his bully pulpit is virtually non-existent at this point.

And the threat of lawsuits is far from conclusive and affirms only the fear of activist judges which I'll confess is real but not an immediate threat. We are talking about years to go through the courts on matters like these.