(01-21-2022 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 04:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:48 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

I'd love to see some actual in depth arguments on why this position is valid from actual lawyers. Because I think it's totally bogus. We have all kinds of caps in all the sports already. You want hard caps on numbers and pay? NFL. Want soft caps with a luxury tax if you pay over instead? MLB. We have caps everywhere in every single sport... other than the college ones.

Not a lawyer.

Those caps are collectively bargained with the players unions. When agreed to in a CBA, labor can give up somethings that are normally protected by antitrust and labor laws. In exchange for the NFL cap, the players also got a salary floor for each team and minimum salaries in exchange for agreeing to a cap.

If college players are recognized as employees and they decide to unionize a cap is possible. But it will come at another cost to the universities and there is a real chance players don't decide to unionize. Universities can't act as a cartel and price fix labor, which is what they do now.

Edit: MLB is actually a little different. Antitrust law put a specific exemption in for MLB. NCAA is lobbying for that but it looks unlikely Congress will go for it.

Players unions will lead to the end of college sports. The series of strikes in MLB ended its role as America's most popular sport. NFL was gaining, but those were a huge blow.

Nahh. Once your paying them---college sports is already dead. Its just another pro league. Unions or no unions---I dont see that it makes any difference at that point. Hold outs will be the next thing you start seeing once pay-for-play starts. Frankly, if the players want to be paid---then lets go all in on pro ball, All the useless players that are tying up scholarships need to get fired at the end of every season to open up spots for portal players and new kids. A fired player can either pay his own way through school like everyone else--or he can see if he can catch on elsewhere via the portal. Since its pro ball---Keep the 85 player cap---but eliminate the 25 player per year limit----a school could completely remake their entire roster in one off season. Now thats how you keep fans interested in the new era. Every year is a new beginning. If the kids dont like that---they can ask for and sign a long term deal---but that means they cant hit the portal the moment they get upset with the coach. Imagine what these changes will do to the educational outcomes for these kids---most of whom will never play NFL ball.

I guarantee you anyone who thinks paying the players is a great idea hasnt really thought it through. Its a college folks---not a pro sports franchise. I hate the idea of paying players----but thats clearly where we are headed.

Entropy is a necessary thing in a stagnant group think endeavor like the NCAA. You can't remember why you set things up originally when decades of changes have been made which screwed up the original plan and vision. It's the natural death of dysfunctional systems which leads to the rebirth of reason and vision.

Let the NCAA die, while the inevitable downside of professionalism stakes its claim and fails, and a new vision for college sports, without corporate interference, will one day be reborn. Those caught in the confusion of the moment seldom remember the course they first charted.

When you can't stop foolish madness it's best to let it have its way so that it collapses sooner. The worst thing any of us can do is to tweak it and sort of make it work because that only prolongs a negative process.

If corporations want to professionalize college sports let them. The money will be there to make it happen. When popularity wanes, the money dries up and people suddenly remember why school should be about education and why sports were once a voluntary extracurricular event and coaches volunteer faculty.

So, I say add fuel to the fire and loose the hounds of hell, and soon enough people will beg again for reason. And if in the process corporations lose the pedestals that too many common folks place them upon, and the people return to sincere enforcement of anti-trust laws to keep them out of their private lives, beliefs, and beloved academic associations, then the better off we all will be, both liberal and conservative, as we are all neighbors being assaulted daily in manifest ways by faceless monoliths which no longer even feel appreciation for the consumer, we the public.

I'm for breakaway, pay for play, and professionalization, because the sooner it happens the sooner it can fail, and the sooner we can return to a semblance of sanity. But right now, it has too much corporate sponsorship, too much political sympathy (mostly because of corporate lobbies and PACs) to be stopped. If corporations ruin our college sports the era of corporations will die out quicker, and that will be a good thing for all.

(01-23-2022 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 04:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:48 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd love to see some actual in depth arguments on why this position is valid from actual lawyers. Because I think it's totally bogus. We have all kinds of caps in all the sports already. You want hard caps on numbers and pay? NFL. Want soft caps with a luxury tax if you pay over instead? MLB. We have caps everywhere in every single sport... other than the college ones.

Not a lawyer.

Those caps are collectively bargained with the players unions. When agreed to in a CBA, labor can give up somethings that are normally protected by antitrust and labor laws. In exchange for the NFL cap, the players also got a salary floor for each team and minimum salaries in exchange for agreeing to a cap.

If college players are recognized as employees and they decide to unionize a cap is possible. But it will come at another cost to the universities and there is a real chance players don't decide to unionize. Universities can't act as a cartel and price fix labor, which is what they do now.

Edit: MLB is actually a little different. Antitrust law put a specific exemption in for MLB. NCAA is lobbying for that but it looks unlikely Congress will go for it.

Players unions will lead to the end of college sports. The series of strikes in MLB ended its role as America's most popular sport. NFL was gaining, but those were a huge blow.

Nahh. Once your paying them---college sports is already dead. Its just another pro league. Unions or no unions---I dont see that it makes any difference at that point. Hold outs will be the next thing you start seeing once pay-for-play starts. Frankly, if the players want to be paid---then lets go all in on pro ball, All the useless players that are tying up scholarships need to get fired at the end of every season to open up spots for portal players and new kids. A fired player can either pay his own way through school like everyone else--or he can see if he can catch on elsewhere via the portal. Since its pro ball---Keep the 85 player cap---but eliminate the 25 player per year limit----a school could completely remake their entire roster in one off season. Now thats how you keep fans interested in the new era. Every year is a new beginning. If the kids dont like that---they can ask for and sign a long term deal---but that means they cant hit the portal the moment they get upset with the coach. Imagine what these changes will do to the educational outcomes for these kids---most of whom will never play NFL ball.

I guarantee you anyone who thinks paying the players is a great idea hasnt really thought it through. Its a college folks---not a pro sports franchise. I hate the idea of paying players----but thats clearly where we are headed.

Entropy is a necessary thing in a stagnant group think endeavor like the NCAA. You can't remember why you set things up originally when decades of changes have been made which screwed up the original plan and vision. It's the natural death of dysfunctional systems which leads to the rebirth of reason and vision.

Let the NCAA die, while the inevitable downside of professionalism stakes its claim and fails, and a new vision for college sports, without corporate interference, will one day be reborn. Those caught in the confusion of the moment seldom remember the course they first charted.

When you can't stop foolish madness it's best to let it have its way so that it collapses sooner. The worst thing any of us can do is to tweak it and sort of make it work because that only prolongs a negative process.

If corporations want to professionalize college sports let them. The money will be there to make it happen. When popularity wanes, the money dries up and people suddenly remember why school should be about education and why sports were once a voluntary extracurricular event and coaches volunteer faculty.

So, I say add fuel to the fire and loose the hounds of hell, and soon enough people will beg again for reason. And if in the process corporations lose the pedestals that too many common folks place them upon, and the people return to sincere enforcement of anti-trust laws to keep them out of their private lives, beliefs, and beloved academic associations, then the better off we all will be, both liberal and conservative, as we are all neighbors being assaulted daily in manifest ways by faceless monoliths which no longer even feel appreciation for the consumer, we the public.

I'm for breakaway, pay for play, and professionalization, because the sooner it happens the sooner it can fail, and the sooner we can return to a semblance of sanity. But right now, it has too much corporate sponsorship, too much political sympathy (mostly because of corporate lobbies and PACs) to be stopped. If corporations ruin our college sports the era of corporations will die out quicker, and that will be a good thing for all.

Oklahoma and Georgia regretted how much Sooner the Supreme Court ruled in the favor. And OU probably is for Sooner rather than later on changes in Division I.

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t. Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

Not really. If it limits spending, it's a "conspiracy in restraint of trade".

(01-23-2022 07:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

Not really. If it limits spending, it's a "conspiracy in restraint of trade".

The reason I think it might work is that it doesn’t restrict any one particular thing. It would be difficult for any one entity to claim injury, since the team could have chosen to spend more but didn’t.

(01-23-2022 07:14 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 07:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

Not really. If it limits spending, it's a "conspiracy in restraint of trade".

The reason I think it might work is that it doesn’t restrict any one particular thing. It would be difficult for any one entity to claim injury, since the team could have chosen to spend more but didn’t.

Class action suit by assistant coaches, if the rate-of-increaae in salaries drops.

(01-23-2022 07:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 07:14 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

Not really. If it limits spending, it's a "conspiracy in restraint of trade".

This, plus the fact that everyone would get around a silly expense cap by having corporate sponsors, donors, booster foundations, etc. pay for salaries and other things directly rather than donating to the athletic department and having the athletic department pay. A booster group would pay all compensation directly to coaches and their staffs rather than going through a university payroll. Instead of donating money to a university to renovate the football stadium, millionaire boosters would hire the contractors and pay all construction costs themselves.

And on top of all that, no brand name in college sports would ever permit this. Only in a fantasy world would Ohio State and Louisiana State agree to have the same athletic budget as Ohio and Louisiana-Monroe.

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

By capping expenses, the salary is not competitive. It means the institutions are colluding instead of competing with pay/benefits/environment. The salary might be good, but it isn't competitive.

(01-23-2022 04:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  Good article. Bowlsby very much for reducing Division I. Interesting quote from McMillen (former MD athlete who represents ADs):
"...Some, like McMillen, believe now is the time to change the AQ structure. Given the large number of D-I conferences, he says stripping AQ bids would allow leagues to consolidate, a move that would save money and create more regional rivalries. Currently, leagues are hesitant to consolidate, for fear of losing their AQ bid.

“Is there some magic to having 32 conferences? No,” McMillen says. “The whole AQ thing breeds inefficiency.”

Each year, at least a dozen automatic qualifiers take spots that could go to major conference programs who are on the bubble and left out, an issue where “the tension is mounting,” says one Power 5 athletic director. “We are letting anyone into Division I from Division II and all the sudden that school gets a shot at the tournament over an eighth-placed SEC team?..."”

Who gives a rat's ass about the 8th placed SEC team. I'd rather watch the DII team and cheer them on to make it. I'm not watching the barely 0.500 SEC team and no they don't deserve to be in.

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

I've asked about this a lot, and the feedback I've gotten is no, that wouldn't be legal either...UNLESS the federal government granted an antitrust exemption. The NCAA would like that (they'd be happy to trade spending caps for student earning caps + preventing athletes from being viewed as employees), but Congress can't seem to pass a bill.

(01-22-2022 09:39 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 09:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 07:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 06:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 06:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  That quote is telling about the potential forthcoming split in D1.

For P5 and many G5, I believe that athletes will have to be treated as university employees. The business has gotten too large, coaches are earning $10M per year...continuing an amateur charade will not be tolerated by the courts. FBS schools need to increase compensation to student-athletes. At the FBS level, athletes are already de facto employees. Employee-status may be the delineation where D1 schools form a new NCAA D4.

For the balance of the 350 schools in D1, they're going to have to choose whether to follow the P5/FBS into a different business model. I could definitely see how an athletic scholarship to attend a Patriot League school qualifies as sufficient compensation. So long as their business model doesn't prioritize revenue generation, there should be some process for remaining in the traditional student-athlete amateur model. They will probably have to gradually and voluntarily stop participating in the NCAA tournament.

The creation of a pay for play tier creates the space for continued amateur models as it creates choice for athletes. It will be a healthy progression when the initial wrinkles are smoothed over.

I'm not sure about that. Having a tier in which athletes can get paid may reduce the incentive for others to challenge another tier in which colleges have agreed with each other to not pay athletes (i.e., to price-fix athlete compensation at zero), but it doesn't mean they are immune to challenge.

Example: There was a lawsuit filed recently that claims a group of elite private universities has conspired to put a ceiling on the financial aid offers given to students, so that the schools are not bidding against each other.

I doubt the schools could convincingly argue, "The fact that students could attend other colleges that are not part of our price-fixing scheme means that our price-fixing scheme is not illegal."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/16-...-rcna11643

Quote:Sixteen Ivy League and elite U.S. universities were sued in federal court for allegedly illegally conspiring to eliminate competitive financial aid offers to students in a price fixing scheme.

The suit alleges the conspiracy artificially inflated the cost of attendance for all students receiving financial aid and resulted in the overcharging of “over 170,000 financial-aid recipients by at least hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Lawsuits are almost inevitable for any large entity…that doesn’t change the fundamentals. The problem for the P5 is that the operating margins from athletics is too high and the benefits to athletes is restricted. I chuckle at ND boosters proudly boasting how athletics donates money to the educational side of the university. For the overwhelming majority of NCAA member schools, athletics is being heavily subsidized by the broader university. The traditional scholarship model could withstand legal challenges so long as the financial underpinning is consistent with the model.

Why chuckle at the idea of the athletic department sending over $20 million a year to the academic side after all 26 sports programs are fully funded??

That money has been going to fund academic scholarships since the NBC deal was signed in 1991.

That is a good thing, not a bad one.

If ND has to directly pay players (still not sure it will opt for that), then there can be more money raised to do that and still provide money to the academic side.

I chuckle because the value creation is occurring as a result of athletes’ work. Yet only athletes are restricted from benefiting for their effort. So the university spends lavishly on coaches and facilities…but they still can’t spend all the money generated by exceptional athletes. So they give back money to the academic operations…enabling the university to invest its $12,000,000,000+ endowment on better money making ventures. I have visions of Michelangelo painting the ceiling under the Golden Dome.

FWIW - I’m not suggesting that ND’s actions are much different than UVa (other than ND being much better at sponsoring winning football teams). There is no doubt in my mind that Father Jenkins will see the wisdom in paying athletes.

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 01:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  You won't be able to get department spending caps or floors without an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the NCAA is asking for...but increasingly understands they aren't likely to ge

To prevent an antitrust dispute, I guess the alternative to spending floors is requiring schools to compete in a minimum number of sports. Maybe start a Division 1 sub-group that fully funds at least 20 NCAA sanctioned sports. That then makes it easier for conferences in the sub-group to push for higher scholarship limits in Olympic sports. I could see baseball, softball or soccer having much higher levels of play.

This new NCAA constitution is the start of a long transformational process.

The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I believe the MLS was created with salary caps and did not face any anti trust issues. So claiming the presence of a collectively bargained union being the only means seems to not fully explain the reasoning as the MLS is a clear counter-factual example.

(01-23-2022 08:21 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

I've asked about this a lot, and the feedback I've gotten is no, that wouldn't be legal either...UNLESS the federal government granted an antitrust exemption. The NCAA would like that (they'd be happy to trade spending caps for student earning caps + preventing athletes from being viewed as employees), but Congress can't seem to pass a bill.

Which is fine but how was the MLS able to impose it. It might be due to the structure of the MLS where the teams are all technically owned by the league but again I’m not sure the distinction.

(01-23-2022 07:14 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 07:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The issue is spending caps in revenue sports. No one has detailed why other leagues can have caps and the NCAA can’t.

Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires

Quote:Given the government guarentees student loans and increasing student fees play a role in increasing student loan debt….the government has a financial interest in allowing spending caps if desired.

That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

Not really. If it limits spending, it's a "conspiracy in restraint of trade".

The reason I think it might work is that it doesn’t restrict any one particular thing. It would be difficult for any one entity to claim injury, since the team could have chosen to spend more but didn’t.

Exactly. The schools could choose to spend their entire budgets on coaches….

The other question is whom has to agree? People have used the collective bargaining reason but in a total expense isn’t the collective bargaining done with the entities? Too be part of the NCAA are schools the relevant entity. Certainly other orgs like the NAIA exist.

Others have brought up enforcement issues but while important I don’t think they matter until feasibility is determined.

(01-24-2022 07:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 07:14 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 07:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Actually, a whole lot of people have detailed that. It's an antitrust violation, a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The only way you can do it is if it's part of a union contract. The NCAA players do not have a union and aren't expected to have one anytime soon. (I was about to say "and nor do the coaches", but the NABC could morph into a union if the basketball coaches saw a union as being in their interests, which at this point they don't.)

The reason that sports leagues can have salary caps and spending caps and player drafts and free agency limitations and minor league systems etc etc etc is because those things are specified by the NFL-NFLPA contract or the equivalent.

10 years ago, the NFLPA was threatening to decertify their union, exposing the NFL to antitrust actions, if the NFL locked out the players. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/6213...ba-expires


That doesn't really reach any of the relevant problems, from an antitrust perspective.

I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

Not really. If it limits spending, it's a "conspiracy in restraint of trade".

The reason I think it might work is that it doesn’t restrict any one particular thing. It would be difficult for any one entity to claim injury, since the team could have chosen to spend more but didn’t.

Exactly. The schools could choose to spend their entire budgets on coaches….

The other question is whom has to agree? People have used the collective bargaining reason but in a total expense isn’t the collective bargaining done with the entities? Too be part of the NCAA are schools the relevant entity. Certainly other orgs like the NAIA exist.

Others have brought up enforcement issues but while important I don’t think they matter until feasibility is determined.

I believe the minimum wage in California for FTE is $60k for 40hrs, the minimum salary for FTE in some states is $25k for 40hrs.

Not sure how you would put a cap on salaries. I believe Cal States are on scale by the amount of service.

(01-24-2022 07:00 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 08:21 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

I've asked about this a lot, and the feedback I've gotten is no, that wouldn't be legal either...UNLESS the federal government granted an antitrust exemption. The NCAA would like that (they'd be happy to trade spending caps for student earning caps + preventing athletes from being viewed as employees), but Congress can't seem to pass a bill.

Which is fine but how was the MLS able to impose it. It might be due to the structure of the MLS where the teams are all technically owned by the league but again I’m not sure the distinction.

Google and wikipedia are wonderful things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_v._...gue_Soccer

MLS' single-entity structure helped, and the fact that the market for pro soccer players is internatonal helped.

Quote:The District Court ruled in summary judgment on April 19, 2000 that MLS was a single entity and therefore cannot conspire with its investors and its investors cannot conspire with each other.[4]

Quote: The jury found that MLS competes for player services with soccer leagues other than Division 1, and MLS competes with soccer leagues in other countries, meaning that MLS could not be found guilty of monopolizing a market for Division player services in the U.S.

So NCAA basketball might be in okay shape--18 year old basketball players can go to the NBA, or overseas, or to the G-League (setting aside the NBA's one-year rule for now). And players have done that.

College football has a much harder time making that argument.

(01-24-2022 07:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 07:00 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 08:21 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 06:58 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I think he’s referring to overall expense caps, not salary caps. I think an overall expense cap might be legal if it’s high enough to allow the teams to pay a competitive salary.

I've asked about this a lot, and the feedback I've gotten is no, that wouldn't be legal either...UNLESS the federal government granted an antitrust exemption. The NCAA would like that (they'd be happy to trade spending caps for student earning caps + preventing athletes from being viewed as employees), but Congress can't seem to pass a bill.

Which is fine but how was the MLS able to impose it. It might be due to the structure of the MLS where the teams are all technically owned by the league but again I’m not sure the distinction.

Google and wikipedia are wonderful things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_v._...gue_Soccer

MLS' single-entity structure helped, and the fact that the market for pro soccer players is internatonal helped.

Quote:The District Court ruled in summary judgment on April 19, 2000 that MLS was a single entity and therefore cannot conspire with its investors and its investors cannot conspire with each other.[4]

Quote: The jury found that MLS competes for player services with soccer leagues other than Division 1, and MLS competes with soccer leagues in other countries, meaning that MLS could not be found guilty of monopolizing a market for Division player services in the U.S.

So NCAA basketball might be in okay shape--18 year old basketball players can go to the NBA, or overseas, or to the G-League (setting aside the NBA's one-year rule for now). And players have done that.

College football has a much harder time making that argument.

Yes except some leagues already have started for players out of high school. In addition players could also choose NAIA or whatever school allocated more to players.