(02-12-2020 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. In the sports leagues, the unions agree to the cap. In this case it would be imposed on the coaches.

Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

(02-12-2020 07:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than thats where this model has dicatated one is a variable capitalistic cost and the other is a amateur that cant receive anything? If you had a model that capped coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and said "X" amount to the school revenue had to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA. If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

The problem there is that you're artificially capping both players' compensation and coaches' compensation without their agreement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The obvious way to naturally reduce spending on both facilities and coaches is to lift the caps on athletes' compensation.

Correct. Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption to do it.

To me, this is the kind of place where an anti-trust exemption actually makes sense. The sport is losing money. No private entity would ever step in and create a 130 team league with a full spectrum of women's sports. College sports clearly performs a public good (lots of kids do get a college education). And finally---it is not in the public interests that publicly funded state institutions get into bidding wars over players and coaches for something that is not the primary purpose of these public institutions (especially when this side of the business loses money and is getting funded directly or indirectly by tax dollars).

College sports is far more deserving of an anti-trust exemption than a clearly for profit healthy money making enterprise like MLB. The key is, the NCAA would have to give up ultimate control and agree to be regulated by the Feds. I agree that you cant really just "trust" that the NCAA will operate properly with an exemption on their own. I think this is where we will eventually end up---otherwise, college sports as we know it is done.

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

(02-12-2020 07:27 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

(02-12-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:27 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

(02-12-2020 07:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than thats where this model has dicatated one is a variable capitalistic cost and the other is a amateur that cant receive anything? If you had a model that capped coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and said "X" amount to the school revenue had to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA. If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

The problem there is that you're artificially capping both players' compensation and coaches' compensation without their agreement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The obvious way to naturally reduce spending on both facilities and coaches is to lift the caps on athletes' compensation.

Yes. That's why coaches salaries do not explode in the NBA or NFL, they have to compete with players for the money. If we lifted the cap on college player pay, same thing would happen, some of Dabo's money would be redirected to Trevor Lawrence, etc.

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. In the sports leagues, the unions agree to the cap. In this case it would be imposed on the coaches.

Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Well if it would violate the constitution, an anti-trust exemption wouldn't be enough to make it legal.

(02-12-2020 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than thats where this model has dicatated one is a variable capitalistic cost and the other is a amateur that cant receive anything? If you had a model that capped coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and said "X" amount to the school revenue had to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA. If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

The problem there is that you're artificially capping both players' compensation and coaches' compensation without their agreement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The obvious way to naturally reduce spending on both facilities and coaches is to lift the caps on athletes' compensation.

Yes. That's why coaches salaries do not explode in the NBA or NFL, they have to compete with players for the money. If we lifted the cap on college player pay, same thing would happen, some of Dabo's money would be redirected to Trevor Lawrence, etc.

Exactly. But Coog's idea would require the drawing of an artificial, arbitrary line between the worth of coaches and the worth of athletes.

Either open the market and let the market continually find the proper balance or let all involved parties, including athletes, collectively bargain for their stake.

(02-12-2020 07:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:27 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

(02-12-2020 07:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:27 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

If you ask me, "Should Congress prohibit schools from forcing students to pay for athletics," I'd say yes, absolutely.

Meanwhile, it's not the fault of valuable college athletes that schools who can't support athletics soak their students.

(02-12-2020 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. In the sports leagues, the unions agree to the cap. In this case it would be imposed on the coaches.

Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Well if it would violate the constitution, an anti-trust exemption wouldn't be enough to make it legal.

Anti-trust law is based in statute. Its not expressly discussed by the constitution. If you have an exemption from the Congress signed by the president, then its legal.---just like any other law.

(02-12-2020 08:05 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:27 PM)chester Wrote:  Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

If you ask me, "Should Congress prohibit schools from forcing students to pay for athletics," I'd say yes, absolutely.

Meanwhile, it's not the fault of valuable college athletes that schools who can't support athletics soak their students.

I didnt say it was. My point from the very start is that college athletics is just the kind of place that a anti-trust exemption makes sense. Its not in the public good to damage the sport---but its also not in the public good that athletes be taken advantage of. The reasonable answer is to find a solution that allows athletes to share in the revenue that the sport spins off. However, any solution has to recognize that sports are not a primary purpose of the school, are overall a money losing proposition, and are largely funded directly or indirectly through tax dollars (so reasonable cost containment is a must).

(02-12-2020 07:54 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than thats where this model has dicatated one is a variable capitalistic cost and the other is a amateur that cant receive anything? If you had a model that capped coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and said "X" amount to the school revenue had to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA. If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

The problem there is that you're artificially capping both players' compensation and coaches' compensation without their agreement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The obvious way to naturally reduce spending on both facilities and coaches is to lift the caps on athletes' compensation.

Yes. That's why coaches salaries do not explode in the NBA or NFL, they have to compete with players for the money. If we lifted the cap on college player pay, same thing would happen, some of Dabo's money would be redirected to Trevor Lawrence, etc.

Exactly. But Coog's idea would require the drawing of an artificial, arbitrary line between the worth of coaches and the worth of athletes.

Either open the market and let the market continually find the proper balance or let all involved parties, including athletes, collectively bargain for their stake.

Then dont draw a line. Set a total percentage of the budget that must go to players and coaches. Each school can distribute that as they see fit. Every business sets aside a labor budget and decides how to allocate it.

But here again---you have a problem. In a real business---that labor percentage line is easy to set because its roughly the breakeven point (lol...preferably below the break even point). In college sports---where most everyone is losing money year after year after year---where is that line? Because in the free market---that number would be zero----as anyone with a lick of sense would close down a business that loses money year after year with no real hope of ever making money. Again---we see why this whole capitalism model doesnt fit well because these really arent like a typical business. If this were a real business it would be shut down and nobody would rush in to replace it (certainly not with a 130 team league with womens sports---which means the vast majority of current scholarship athletes would have a market value of zero in that scenario).

I think there is a reasonable fix---but it is likley going to be a unique out of the box solution.

(02-12-2020 08:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:05 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

If you ask me, "Should Congress prohibit schools from forcing students to pay for athletics," I'd say yes, absolutely.

Meanwhile, it's not the fault of valuable college athletes that schools who can't support athletics soak their students.

I didnt say it was. My point from the very start is that college athletics is just the kind of place that a anti-trust exemption makes sense. Its not in the public good to damage the sport---but its also not in the public good that athletes be taken advantage of. The reasonable answer is to find a solution that allows athletes to share in the revenue that the sport spins off. However, any solution has to recognize that sports are not a primary purpose of the school, are overall a money losing proposition, and are largely funded directly or indirectly through tax dollars (so reasonable cost containment is a must).

Here I can only agree to disagree. An antitrust exemption for the Cartel cannot make sense as long as the Cartel insists upon "amateurism" and refuses to acknowledge that athletic scholarships for those in revenue sports are, indeed, payment for services rendered. They have taken advantage of athletes for far too long and that has to be stopped.

Any "money losing proposition" should be done away with. Any school that cannot satisfy Title IX through revenue and donations alone should not sponsor any sports at all. Period.

(02-12-2020 08:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:05 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:42 PM)chester Wrote:  But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

If you ask me, "Should Congress prohibit schools from forcing students to pay for athletics," I'd say yes, absolutely.

Meanwhile, it's not the fault of valuable college athletes that schools who can't support athletics soak their students.

I didnt say it was. My point from the very start is that college athletics is just the kind of place that a anti-trust exemption makes sense. Its not in the public good to damage the sport---but its also not in the public good that athletes be taken advantage of. The reasonable answer is to find a solution that allows athletes to share in the revenue that the sport spins off. However, any solution has to recognize that sports are not a primary purpose of the school, are overall a money losing proposition, and are largely funded directly or indirectly through tax dollars (so reasonable cost containment is a must).

Here I can only agree to disagree. An antitrust exemption for the Cartel cannot make sense as long as the Cartel insists upon "amateurism" and refuses to acknowledge that athletic scholarships for those in revenue sports are, indeed, payment for services rendered. They have taken advantage of athletes for far too long and that has to be stopped.

Any "money losing proposition" should be done away with. Any school that cannot satisfy Title IX through revenue and donations alone should not sponsor any sports at all. Period.

Why should a school be subject to Title 9 if its a business? You have to pick a side. If college sports is a business--then let it be a business. If it just a collegiate scholarship program--then let it be that. I think once you really start taking a hard look at it---you will see it is both and it is neither....and there's the real problem. I think a anti-trust exemption is the only thing that will really fit. It would create a way to share the revenue, keep the game largely intact, and place the government in a position to regulate and mediate disputes or issues.

That said--I wont be a bit surprised if they give the olympic model a shot. I dont think its an experiment that provides any lasting solution because it wont give the vast majority of athletes a dime and it wont do anything to stop the other law suits that continue to threaten college sports. They are going to need a grand solution--and the olympic model aint it.

(02-12-2020 08:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:05 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

If you ask me, "Should Congress prohibit schools from forcing students to pay for athletics," I'd say yes, absolutely.

Meanwhile, it's not the fault of valuable college athletes that schools who can't support athletics soak their students.

I didnt say it was. My point from the very start is that college athletics is just the kind of place that a anti-trust exemption makes sense. Its not in the public good to damage the sport---but its also not in the public good that athletes be taken advantage of. The reasonable answer is to find a solution that allows athletes to share in the revenue that the sport spins off. However, any solution has to recognize that sports are not a primary purpose of the school, are overall a money losing proposition, and are largely funded directly or indirectly through tax dollars (so reasonable cost containment is a must).

Here I can only agree to disagree. An antitrust exemption for the Cartel cannot make sense as long as the Cartel insists upon "amateurism" and refuses to acknowledge that athletic scholarships for those in revenue sports are, indeed, payment for services rendered. They have taken advantage of athletes for far too long and that has to be stopped.

Any "money losing proposition" should be done away with. Any school that cannot satisfy Title IX through revenue and donations alone should not sponsor any sports at all. Period.

Why should a school be subject to Title 9 if its a business? You have to pick a side. If college sports is a business--then let it be a business. If it just a collegiate scholarship program--then let it be that. I think once you really start taking a hard look at it---you will see it is both and it is neither....and there's the real problem. I think a anti-trust exemption is the only thing that will really fit. That said--I wont be a bit surprised if they give the olympic model a shot. I dont think its an experiment that lasts because it wont do anything to stop the other law suits that are in the pipeline that continue to threaten college sports.

Dude, why should a school support excess non-revenue sports that aren't required? You have to pick a side. Let it be a business that operates with minimal exploitation of labor.

I understand that you think an antitrust exemption suits college athletics. I just disagree. No biggie. We're not the ones to deside, anyway.

But, hey, IMO any lawsuit the "threatens college sports" is a good thing in my book, because it means the addressing of something that is inately wrong.

(02-12-2020 07:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:42 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:27 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Antitrust laws exist for a reason. To encourage innovation, to protect consumers and, in this case, protect labor.

Correct. Thats why whenever you allow a monopoly---its usually in conjunction with a very high degree of government regulation (to protect all parties involved). The only time we do that is when it is deemed to be in the public interest. Im suggesting that this may be one of those rare times.

But you're not "protecting" all involved parties if you're capping the compensation of athletes and coaches without their agreement. You're merely merely making Congress the bad guy and not the Cartel.

Now way on Earth Congress regulates coaches salaries after a century plus of non-regulation. The Cartel is lucky that it's been able to get away with capping players' compensation these many years. They will change, eventually.

Who's protecting the kids that pay for all this stuff with their student fees and government loans? The coaches? The players? The problem is this is not really a capitalistic endaevor. If it were just a typical for profit sports league with investors---Id be fine with full on free agency---but these folks are all seeking to soak up money provided by student loans and tax payers.

Nobody forces a school to soak its students with fees and transfers. The schools can stop doing that any time they want. So it would be silly for a school to say to the feds "you have to let us cap player and coach pay because otherwise gosh darnit we will keep having to raise student fees!".

That's pretty laughable. A school doesn't have to have a football team at all.

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players.

Thing is, if you are concerned about coach salaries - and there's little reason to be concerned, as the highest-paid coaches that draw the headlines like Saban and Dabo are surely worth it to their schools - then just allow the payment of players. Then, coaches have to compete with players for athletic revenue, which will naturally temper coaching salaries, as it does in the NFL, NBA, etc. No need for anti-trust or whatever, the NCAA can do this on their own right now.

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. In the sports leagues, the unions agree to the cap. In this case it would be imposed on the coaches.

Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Anti-Trust lets the union and league work together. It doesn't allow the league to unilaterally impose the cap. That, like what you propose, would be unconstitutional with or without an anti-trust exemption.

(02-12-2020 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. In the sports leagues, the unions agree to the cap. In this case it would be imposed on the coaches.

Thats why you'd need an anti-trust exemption.

Well if it would violate the constitution, an anti-trust exemption wouldn't be enough to make it legal.

Anti-trust law is based in statute. Its not expressly discussed by the constitution. If you have an exemption from the Congress signed by the president, then its legal.---just like any other law.

Bullet said that the kind of thing you want would violate the constitution. I don't know if it would or wouldn't, but if a law violates the constitution it will be invalidated down by the courts even if Congress passes it and the President signs it.

So an anti-trust exemption can't legalize something that violates the constitution. The only thing that can make something that violates the constitution legal is a constitutional amendment.