(02-17-2020 06:47 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 05:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 05:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 04:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If you're worried about a scenario in which some court says that universities can pay salaries to athletes and that Ohio State will then pay huge salaries to every player on their football team, then IMO you're worried about something that no one need worry about.

Im more concerned that a court will say you cant limit compensation. No league (even pro leagues) combines free transfer with no compensation limits. There is a reason for that. My feeling is they will work out some sort of compromise...but if it may require a law change.

Don't think that's a concern, either. Even if a court says the NCAA can't use its cartel power to forbid its members to allow athletes to be paid, the result would be one group of universities that allow athletes to receive compensation and another group that either allows NIL only or continues with a nothing-but-scholarship system similar to the current one.

Thats been my point. There isnt one university that WANTS to dump the scholarship only model. So, if a ruling comes down that says "you cant limit compensation"---then there wont be a "scholarship only" division or a D3 "no scholarship" division. If you cant cap compensation, you cant cap compensation--anywhere in the NCAA. Otherwise, the Big10 will just move to the "scholarship only" division.---a move that will quickly followed by every FBS conference. So---if there is a no cap ruling---there wont be any divisions in the NCAA anymore---as they are all currently defined by compensation caps.

Coog, take a look at the injunction the District Court of NorCal ordered in Alston regarding education-related benefits.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y7Zxr6i...GH4jo/view

Notice that it applies only to FBS and D1 men's & women's Bball. Why? Because that was the class of college athlete that brought suit. The same would have been true in regard extra-educational benifits had the court enjoined those caps as well and the same will yet be true if the Ninth Circuit sends the case back to the district court with instruction to do so.

No one is challenging all NCAA caps -- all sports, all divisions. And if a court enjoins caps on extra-education benefits in some sports at some level(s), no one involved would have to pay any player anything. They just wouldn't be able to agree with others that they won't.

Then if thats the case, expect there to be an empty shell where D1 FBS used to be. I dont think there is a single school president in any FBS conference that has any interest at all in paying players. They certainly dont want athlete employees. If you give them a choice between playing scholarship ball like they currently are---or wild west free agency with athlete employees playing semi-pro football---they will take the scholarship option in a heartbeat. Heck---if they move as a conference like happened in the late 1970's---nothing really changes. They play the same teams with the same TV deal. They may have to throw their weight around a bit to get the post season they want---but they will get what they want.

This is why I dont see any way they can leave this avenue open. If there is a division that allows the "scholarship only" model---I dont see how you can stop these conferences from playing in it. If it happens, I guess we will see how it shakes out.

(02-17-2020 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:47 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 05:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 05:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im more concerned that a court will say you cant limit compensation. No league (even pro leagues) combines free transfer with no compensation limits. There is a reason for that. My feeling is they will work out some sort of compromise...but if it may require a law change.

Don't think that's a concern, either. Even if a court says the NCAA can't use its cartel power to forbid its members to allow athletes to be paid, the result would be one group of universities that allow athletes to receive compensation and another group that either allows NIL only or continues with a nothing-but-scholarship system similar to the current one.

Thats been my point. There isnt one university that WANTS to dump the scholarship only model. So, if a ruling comes down that says "you cant limit compensation"---then there wont be a "scholarship only" division or a D3 "no scholarship" division. If you cant cap compensation, you cant cap compensation--anywhere in the NCAA. Otherwise, the Big10 will just move to the "scholarship only" division.---a move that will quickly followed by every FBS conference. So---if there is a no cap ruling---there wont be any divisions in the NCAA anymore---as they are all currently defined by compensation caps.

Coog, take a look at the injunction the District Court of NorCal ordered in Alston regarding education-related benefits.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y7Zxr6i...GH4jo/view

Notice that it applies only to FBS and D1 men's & women's Bball. Why? Because that was the class of college athlete that brought suit. The same would have been true in regard extra-educational benifits had the court enjoined those caps as well and the same will yet be true if the Ninth Circuit sends the case back to the district court with instruction to do so.

No one is challenging all NCAA caps -- all sports, all divisions. And if a court enjoins caps on extra-education benefits in some sports at some level(s), no one involved would have to pay any player anything. They just wouldn't be able to agree with others that they won't.

Then if thats the case, expect there to be an empty shell where D1 FBS used to be. I dont think there is a single school president in any FBS conference that has any interest at all in paying players. They certainly dont want athlete employees. If you give them a choice between playing scholarship ball like they currently are---or wild west free agency with athlete employees playing semi-pro football---they will take the scholarship option in a heartbeat. Heck---if they move as a conference like happened in the late 1970's---nothing really changes. They play the same teams with the same TV deal. They may have to throw their weight around a bit to get the post season they want---but they will get what they want.

This is why I dont see any way they can leave this avenue open. If there is a division that allows the "scholarship only" model---I dont see how you can stop these conferences from playing in it.

I do sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that what you envision can or would actually happen. If escaping the law is so simple, why are the NCAA and the NCAA conferences involved in the case spending tens of millions fighting it?

(02-17-2020 08:40 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:47 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 05:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Don't think that's a concern, either. Even if a court says the NCAA can't use its cartel power to forbid its members to allow athletes to be paid, the result would be one group of universities that allow athletes to receive compensation and another group that either allows NIL only or continues with a nothing-but-scholarship system similar to the current one.

Thats been my point. There isnt one university that WANTS to dump the scholarship only model. So, if a ruling comes down that says "you cant limit compensation"---then there wont be a "scholarship only" division or a D3 "no scholarship" division. If you cant cap compensation, you cant cap compensation--anywhere in the NCAA. Otherwise, the Big10 will just move to the "scholarship only" division.---a move that will quickly followed by every FBS conference. So---if there is a no cap ruling---there wont be any divisions in the NCAA anymore---as they are all currently defined by compensation caps.

Coog, take a look at the injunction the District Court of NorCal ordered in Alston regarding education-related benefits.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y7Zxr6i...GH4jo/view

Notice that it applies only to FBS and D1 men's & women's Bball. Why? Because that was the class of college athlete that brought suit. The same would have been true in regard extra-educational benifits had the court enjoined those caps as well and the same will yet be true if the Ninth Circuit sends the case back to the district court with instruction to do so.

No one is challenging all NCAA caps -- all sports, all divisions. And if a court enjoins caps on extra-education benefits in some sports at some level(s), no one involved would have to pay any player anything. They just wouldn't be able to agree with others that they won't.

Then if thats the case, expect there to be an empty shell where D1 FBS used to be. I dont think there is a single school president in any FBS conference that has any interest at all in paying players. They certainly dont want athlete employees. If you give them a choice between playing scholarship ball like they currently are---or wild west free agency with athlete employees playing semi-pro football---they will take the scholarship option in a heartbeat. Heck---if they move as a conference like happened in the late 1970's---nothing really changes. They play the same teams with the same TV deal. They may have to throw their weight around a bit to get the post season they want---but they will get what they want.

This is why I dont see any way they can leave this avenue open. If there is a division that allows the "scholarship only" model---I dont see how you can stop these conferences from playing in it.

I do sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that what you envision can or would actually happen. If escaping the law is so simple, why are the NCAA and the NCAA conferences involved in the case spending tens of millions fighting it?

lol......I'm the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

That said---my position is I think none of this is going to happen. I think they will find a reasonable solution that allows caps, but finds a way to share revenue with the players....which will violate anti-trust law....just like now.

(02-17-2020 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:40 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:47 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats been my point. There isnt one university that WANTS to dump the scholarship only model. So, if a ruling comes down that says "you cant limit compensation"---then there wont be a "scholarship only" division or a D3 "no scholarship" division. If you cant cap compensation, you cant cap compensation--anywhere in the NCAA. Otherwise, the Big10 will just move to the "scholarship only" division.---a move that will quickly followed by every FBS conference. So---if there is a no cap ruling---there wont be any divisions in the NCAA anymore---as they are all currently defined by compensation caps.

Coog, take a look at the injunction the District Court of NorCal ordered in Alston regarding education-related benefits.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y7Zxr6i...GH4jo/view

Notice that it applies only to FBS and D1 men's & women's Bball. Why? Because that was the class of college athlete that brought suit. The same would have been true in regard extra-educational benifits had the court enjoined those caps as well and the same will yet be true if the Ninth Circuit sends the case back to the district court with instruction to do so.

No one is challenging all NCAA caps -- all sports, all divisions. And if a court enjoins caps on extra-education benefits in some sports at some level(s), no one involved would have to pay any player anything. They just wouldn't be able to agree with others that they won't.

Then if thats the case, expect there to be an empty shell where D1 FBS used to be. I dont think there is a single school president in any FBS conference that has any interest at all in paying players. They certainly dont want athlete employees. If you give them a choice between playing scholarship ball like they currently are---or wild west free agency with athlete employees playing semi-pro football---they will take the scholarship option in a heartbeat. Heck---if they move as a conference like happened in the late 1970's---nothing really changes. They play the same teams with the same TV deal. They may have to throw their weight around a bit to get the post season they want---but they will get what they want.

This is why I dont see any way they can leave this avenue open. If there is a division that allows the "scholarship only" model---I dont see how you can stop these conferences from playing in it.

I do sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that what you envision can or would actually happen. If escaping the law is so simple, why are the NCAA and the NCAA conferences involved in the case spending tens of millions fighting it?

lol......To be fair----Im the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

Come on, now. You are the one who first suggested that FBS schools would drop to a lower division if an Alston-type case is won by plaintiffs. I don't recall anyone else saying anything other than that an injunction against caps doesn't mean that players have to be paid.

And you are still doing it:

"every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists"

Surely an injunction against "FBS" means and injunction against the schools that comprise FBS.

Again, if evading the law is so simple, why are they spending so much money fighting that case?

To back up the claim of "tens of millions":

$32+M in Alston plaintiffs' costs alone. Not including whatever the Cartel is paying is own lawyers.

(02-17-2020 09:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:40 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 06:47 PM)chester Wrote:  Coog, take a look at the injunction the District Court of NorCal ordered in Alston regarding education-related benefits.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y7Zxr6i...GH4jo/view

Notice that it applies only to FBS and D1 men's & women's Bball. Why? Because that was the class of college athlete that brought suit. The same would have been true in regard extra-educational benifits had the court enjoined those caps as well and the same will yet be true if the Ninth Circuit sends the case back to the district court with instruction to do so.

No one is challenging all NCAA caps -- all sports, all divisions. And if a court enjoins caps on extra-education benefits in some sports at some level(s), no one involved would have to pay any player anything. They just wouldn't be able to agree with others that they won't.

Then if thats the case, expect there to be an empty shell where D1 FBS used to be. I dont think there is a single school president in any FBS conference that has any interest at all in paying players. They certainly dont want athlete employees. If you give them a choice between playing scholarship ball like they currently are---or wild west free agency with athlete employees playing semi-pro football---they will take the scholarship option in a heartbeat. Heck---if they move as a conference like happened in the late 1970's---nothing really changes. They play the same teams with the same TV deal. They may have to throw their weight around a bit to get the post season they want---but they will get what they want.

This is why I dont see any way they can leave this avenue open. If there is a division that allows the "scholarship only" model---I dont see how you can stop these conferences from playing in it.

I do sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that what you envision can or would actually happen. If escaping the law is so simple, why are the NCAA and the NCAA conferences involved in the case spending tens of millions fighting it?

lol......To be fair----Im the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

Come on, now. You are the one who first suggested that FBS schools would drop to a lower division if an Alston-type case is won by plaintiffs. I don't recall anyone else saying anything other than that an injunction against caps doesn't mean that players have to be paid.

And you are still doing it:

"every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists"

Surely an injunction against "FBS" means and injunction against the schools that comprise FBS.

Again, if evading the law is so simple, why are they spending so much money fighting that case?

Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation. I see no way to block schools who want to play "scholarship only" football from playing at that level if its allowed to exist. I dont think a court can tell a state school they cant drop down to another division. The only way to stop it, is to rule all capped levels are in violation of antitrust law.

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:40 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Then if thats the case, expect there to be an empty shell where D1 FBS used to be. I dont think there is a single school president in any FBS conference that has any interest at all in paying players. They certainly dont want athlete employees. If you give them a choice between playing scholarship ball like they currently are---or wild west free agency with athlete employees playing semi-pro football---they will take the scholarship option in a heartbeat. Heck---if they move as a conference like happened in the late 1970's---nothing really changes. They play the same teams with the same TV deal. They may have to throw their weight around a bit to get the post season they want---but they will get what they want.

This is why I dont see any way they can leave this avenue open. If there is a division that allows the "scholarship only" model---I dont see how you can stop these conferences from playing in it.

I do sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that what you envision can or would actually happen. If escaping the law is so simple, why are the NCAA and the NCAA conferences involved in the case spending tens of millions fighting it?

lol......To be fair----Im the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

Come on, now. You are the one who first suggested that FBS schools would drop to a lower division if an Alston-type case is won by plaintiffs. I don't recall anyone else saying anything other than that an injunction against caps doesn't mean that players have to be paid.

And you are still doing it:

"every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists"

Surely an injunction against "FBS" means and injunction against the schools that comprise FBS.

Again, if evading the law is so simple, why are they spending so much money fighting that case?

Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation. I see no way to block schools who want to play "scholarship only" football from playing at that level. I dont think a court can tell a state school they cant drop down to another division. The only way to stop it, is to rule all capped levels are in violation of antitrust law.

OK, if that's the case, I overlooked it. But to remind, an injunction against extra-educational benefits doesn't mean any one has to pay any one. Who's going to complain if, say, schools in the Sun Belt or MAC paid no one beyond FCOA when schools in other FBS conferences do?

Not to pick on the Sun Belt and MAC in particular. Just suggesting that as long as no defendants collude to fix pay and at least some FBS conferences do pay, no one's going to complain if not all FBS schools...pay. Right? DON'T WRITE PRICE-FIXING INTO THE RULE BOOK!

(02-17-2020 10:00 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:40 PM)chester Wrote:  I do sincerely hope that you don't honestly believe that what you envision can or would actually happen. If escaping the law is so simple, why are the NCAA and the NCAA conferences involved in the case spending tens of millions fighting it?

lol......To be fair----Im the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

Come on, now. You are the one who first suggested that FBS schools would drop to a lower division if an Alston-type case is won by plaintiffs. I don't recall anyone else saying anything other than that an injunction against caps doesn't mean that players have to be paid.

And you are still doing it:

"every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists"

Surely an injunction against "FBS" means and injunction against the schools that comprise FBS.

Again, if evading the law is so simple, why are they spending so much money fighting that case?

Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation. I see no way to block schools who want to play "scholarship only" football from playing at that level. I dont think a court can tell a state school they cant drop down to another division. The only way to stop it, is to rule all capped levels are in violation of antitrust law.

OK, if that's the case, I overlooked it. But to remind, an injunction against extra-educational benefits doesn't mean any one has to pay any one. Who's going to complain if, say, schools in the Sun Belt or MAC paid no one beyond FCOA when schools in other FBS conferences do?

Not to pick on the Sun Belt and MAC in particular. Just suggesting that as long as no defendants collude to fix pay and at least some FBS conferences do pay, no one's going to complain if not all FBS schools...pay. Right? DON'T WRITE PRICE-FIXING INTO THE RULE BOOK!

So “scholarship only”—-but with no rules and no enforcement. Yeah—basically, “scholarship only” won’t exist. And if your program is trying to play "scholarship only" and 2 or 3 other teams are are paying----your program has no chance. It wont be long before your fans will realize you have no chance to compete. Your fan base will wither and soon....your program won’t exist. You cant have some teams playing "scholarship only" while other play "pay-for-play" and expect there to be competitive games. Anybody can see that wont work.

Look—you guys can believe that uncapped free agency will have absolutely no affect on the college landscape and everything will bounce along just fine---but if you just take some time to game plan out the ramifications in your head---you'll see big issues that will kill the sport. Don’t think about it from just one point of view—consider how players and agents will react. Then consider what the schools will do in response. Think how budgets will be affected. Think about how the changes will affect performance on the field and the product on TV and its consistency. Don’t forget about free transfer rules and how they will function with free agency bidding wars. How will rapid turnover affect fan loylaty? How will attendance and viewership fare when we know the biggest budget will always win? Will college presidents want anything to do with athletics in a mercenary bidding war environment? Will kids even get degrees with all the moving around? Will they care? Can the NCAA enforce grade point rules---or is that antitrust behavior as well? Will hold outs and contract disputes become commonplace? Can the school enforce a contract? Will schools be sued for tampering when players transfer? What about the 85 scholarship rule? Do scholarships even matter if you can just bump a players salary another $40K a year so the kid can pay for school on his own.


Once you start considering all the angles, you’ll see there won’t be much college football in existence in few years. I suspect many presidents will want nothing to do with these minor-league pro franchises that have little to do with the schools. There will be something that looks kinda like the XFL that has the highest budget 10-20 teams and most everything else will be gone. There will be a few kids making really good money....most wont make much more than scholarship money because the point will be to make enough profit to cover the Title 9 financial anchor. The vast majority of scholarship opportunities for athletes will vanish when all the other schools are barred from organizing "scholarship only" capped compensation leagues and decide they want no part of bad minor league football forced on them by the courts.

The fans and the vast majority of student athletes will lose. The lawyers will do ok with free agency. I think the people in charge understand that uncapped free agency will result if far fewer athletic scholarship opportunities and the virtual elimination of most women's sports. I think cooler heads will prevail and some sort of novel solution involving caps and revenue sharing will emerge. Otherwise---its over.

At any rate—I think expressed my opinion enough on this. I’ll leave the thread to the rest of you to kick around.

(02-17-2020 10:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 10:00 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol......To be fair----Im the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

Come on, now. You are the one who first suggested that FBS schools would drop to a lower division if an Alston-type case is won by plaintiffs. I don't recall anyone else saying anything other than that an injunction against caps doesn't mean that players have to be paid.

And you are still doing it:

"every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists"

Surely an injunction against "FBS" means and injunction against the schools that comprise FBS.

Again, if evading the law is so simple, why are they spending so much money fighting that case?

Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation. I see no way to block schools who want to play "scholarship only" football from playing at that level. I dont think a court can tell a state school they cant drop down to another division. The only way to stop it, is to rule all capped levels are in violation of antitrust law.

OK, if that's the case, I overlooked it. But to remind, an injunction against extra-educational benefits doesn't mean any one has to pay any one. Who's going to complain if, say, schools in the Sun Belt or MAC paid no one beyond FCOA when schools in other FBS conferences do?

Not to pick on the Sun Belt and MAC in particular. Just suggesting that as long as no defendants collude to fix pay and at least some FBS conferences do pay, no one's going to complain if not all FBS schools...pay. Right? DON'T WRITE PRICE-FIXING INTO THE RULE BOOK!

So “scholarship only”—-but with no rules and no enforcement. Yeah—basically, “scholarship only” won’t exist. And if your program only exists to go 0-12....your program won’t exist. Look—you guys can play in fantasy land— ijust game play it out in your head. Don’t play it from just one point of view—think how players and agents will be involved. Think how budgets will be affected. Think about how the changes will affect performance and the product on the field. How will that affect attendance and viewership. You’ll see there won’t be much college football in existence in few years. There will be something that looks kinda like the XFL and everyone else will be gone.... the fans and the vast majority of student athletes will lose. lol—as usual, the lawyers will do very well.

OK, I no longer have any idea what you're saying. That's cool.

IMO, college sports aren't going anywhere from here but up. I look forward to one day having the ability to look other fans in the eye, knowing that folks aren't being treated as 2nd class citizens.

Meh, it's the same old tired story...

70s NCAA - Title IX will KILL college sports!

...many thousands later..

80s NCAA - Board of Regents will KILL college sports!

...millions later...

2000s NCAA - There's no money for FCOA!

...billions later...

2010s NCAA - NIL will KILL college sports!

...to be continued...

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

(02-17-2020 10:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 10:00 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:09 PM)chester Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 08:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol......To be fair----Im the one telling you its not going to be an option-----because we all know they would most certainly take it. You guys are the ones saying you can just drop down and play "scholarship only" sports if you want. What I absolutely believe (and you have to know)--every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists. Like I said---how are you going to stop those leagues from playing in a "scholarship only" division if thats the level they want to play at? You said it yourself----isnt that what this entire anti-trust argument is about? Isnt that what the FBS schools are fighting to keep?

Come on, now. You are the one who first suggested that FBS schools would drop to a lower division if an Alston-type case is won by plaintiffs. I don't recall anyone else saying anything other than that an injunction against caps doesn't mean that players have to be paid.

And you are still doing it:

"every school in FBS absolutely will take a "scholarship only" option if it exists"

Surely an injunction against "FBS" means and injunction against the schools that comprise FBS.

Again, if evading the law is so simple, why are they spending so much money fighting that case?

Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation. I see no way to block schools who want to play "scholarship only" football from playing at that level. I dont think a court can tell a state school they cant drop down to another division. The only way to stop it, is to rule all capped levels are in violation of antitrust law.

OK, if that's the case, I overlooked it. But to remind, an injunction against extra-educational benefits doesn't mean any one has to pay any one. Who's going to complain if, say, schools in the Sun Belt or MAC paid no one beyond FCOA when schools in other FBS conferences do?

Not to pick on the Sun Belt and MAC in particular. Just suggesting that as long as no defendants collude to fix pay and at least some FBS conferences do pay, no one's going to complain if not all FBS schools...pay. Right? DON'T WRITE PRICE-FIXING INTO THE RULE BOOK!

So “scholarship only”—-but with no rules and no enforcement. Yeah—basically, “scholarship only” won’t exist. And if your program is trying to play "scholarship only" and 2 or 3 other teams are are paying----your program has no chance. It wont be long before your fans will realize you have no chance to compete. Your fan base will wither and soon....your program won’t exist. You cant have some teams playing "scholarship only" while other play "pay-for-play" and expect there to be competitive games. Anybody can see that wont work.

Look—you guys can believe that uncapped free agency will have absolutely no affect on the college landscape and everything will bounce along just fine---but if you just take some time to game plan out the ramifications in your head---you'll see big issues that will kill the sport. Don’t think about it from just one point of view—consider how players and agents will react. Then consider what the schools will do in response. Think how budgets will be affected. Think about how the changes will affect performance on the field and the product on TV and its consistency. Don’t forget about free transfer rules and how they will function with free agency bidding wars. How will rapid turnover affect fan loylaty? How will attendance and viewership fare when we know the biggest budget will always win? Will college presidents want anything to do with athletics in a mercenary bidding war environment? Will kids even get degrees with all the moving around? Will they care? Can the NCAA enforce grade point rules---or is that antitrust behavior as well? Will hold outs and contract disputes become commonplace? Can the school enforce a contract? Will schools be sued for tampering when players transfer? What about the 85 scholarship rule? Do scholarships even matter if you can just bump a players salary another $40K a year so the kid can pay for school on his own.


Once you start considering all the angles, you’ll see there won’t be much college football in existence in few years. I suspect many presidents will want nothing to do with these minor-league pro franchises that have little to do with the schools. There will be something that looks kinda like the XFL that has the highest budget 10-20 teams and most everything else will be gone. There will be a few kids making really good money....most wont make much more than scholarship money because the point will be to make enough profit to cover the Title 9 financial anchor. The vast majority of scholarship opportunities for athletes will vanish when all the other schools are barred from organizing "scholarship only" capped compensation leagues and decide they want no part of bad minor league football forced on them by the courts.

The fans and the vast majority of student athletes will lose. The lawyers will do ok with free agency. I think the people in charge understand that uncapped free agency will result if far fewer athletic scholarship opportunities and the virtual elimination of most women's sports. I think cooler heads will prevail and some sort of novel solution involving caps and revenue sharing will emerge. Otherwise---its over.

At any rate—I think expressed my opinion enough on this. I’ll leave the thread to the rest of you to kick around.

I agree with your conclusions. I'm just not sure what the solution is.
NIL is coming. Is pay for play?

If it comes, the first to suffer won't be college football. It will be all the non-rev sports, you know, the ones played by actual students. But eventually college football will be dropped at a lot of places.

I guess one thing to do would be scholarship penalties for one and dones in basketball, so that you don't try to fill a team with them. And it encourages those players to go to the minor leagues or overseas. Do whatever you can as colleges to not cooperate with the NBA until they repeal their ban on recent HS grads.

Except for a handful of programs and schools, football and men's basketball are the only true revenue sports. And other than football, there are professional alternatives for all of these athletes. These one and dones would be going overseas or in the minor leagues if they thought it was a better deal for them than the current scholarship only arrangement. The coaching and exposure they get at the college level are extremely valuable.

That still leaves football. Fact is, almost no freshman has any value to the NFL. The size and strength is so much more a factor in the NFL than other sports which are more skill based.

(02-18-2020 01:15 AM)chester Wrote:  Meh, it's the same old tired story...

70s NCAA - Title IX will KILL college sports!

...many thousands later..

80s NCAA - Board of Regents will KILL college sports!

...millions later...

2000s NCAA - There's no money for FCOA!

...billions later...

2010s NCAA - NIL will KILL college sports!

...to be continued...

Title IX has killed a lot of men's sports teams.

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

(02-18-2020 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

I haven't read most of this thread but if...if a court ruled that the NCAA couldn't have any rules limiting schools compensating players in any way they want by way of antitrust rules you'd basically see the damn break. Boosters of schools could recruit and pay players directly, schools could offer any kind of incentives, etc. So say some schools say nah, we're going to offer scholarship, room and board and COA stipend and only want to play against schools that do the same. You couldn't very well make the argument that they are breaking antitrust rules when there are schools that are doing otherwise and other opportunities available. IF the damn breaks, antitrust lawsuits will go out the window, the monopoly will have been broken. You don't like it go somewhere else. If the majority of schools choose to stick with the student athlete model could there be some collusion lawsuits? Maybe but if the market screams for amateur athletics and you lift the restrictions and demand keeps it that way then how can you still call it a monopoly? Student athletes aren't employees under the law, most are being compensated with much of it tax free in the for of scholarships.

(02-18-2020 02:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

I haven't read most of this thread but if...if a court ruled that the NCAA couldn't have any rules limiting schools compensating players in any way they want by way of antitrust rules you'd basically see the damn break. Boosters of schools could recruit and pay players directly, schools could offer any kind of incentives, etc. So say some schools say nah, we're going to offer scholarship, room and board and COA stipend and only want to play against schools that do the same. You couldn't very well make the argument that they are breaking antitrust rules when there are schools that are doing otherwise and other opportunities available.

I don't think that would be legal, it would be collusion amomg those schools to limit wages. Just as it would be illegal for say the fast food chains to agree amongst each other not to pay more than minimum wage. Wouldn't matter to a court that the employees could work elsewhere

(02-18-2020 02:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 02:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

I haven't read most of this thread but if...if a court ruled that the NCAA couldn't have any rules limiting schools compensating players in any way they want by way of antitrust rules you'd basically see the damn break. Boosters of schools could recruit and pay players directly, schools could offer any kind of incentives, etc. So say some schools say nah, we're going to offer scholarship, room and board and COA stipend and only want to play against schools that do the same. You couldn't very well make the argument that they are breaking antitrust rules when there are schools that are doing otherwise and other opportunities available.

I don't think that would be legal, it would be collusion among those schools to limit wages. Just as it would be illegal for say the fast food chains to agree amongst each other not to pay more than minimum wage. Wouldn't matter to a court that the employees could work elsewhere

They're not wages as they're not employees.

But for the sake of argument, we're not talking fast food chains. What's the one industry where salary caps are not only permitted but common?

(02-18-2020 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quo and Wedge are claiming schools that dont want to pay players can simply drop down to "scholarship only" level. My argument is that option wont be available--because if it were---everyone in FBS would take it. Thats why Im saying such a ruling would effectively end all divisions with capped levels of compensation.

Actually no, I changed my mind about that after reading a post of yours. I agree that a ruling against the NCAA would end all current divisions, because while some schools might only offer compensation that is equal in value to the current scholarship, what would be illegal is a cap limiting schools to just that level. And since current NCAA divisions are defined by the caps they place on compensating players, those divisions would have to go as caps would be illegal.

Which IMO is not a problem. There's nothing sacrosanct about NCAA divisions, certainly no reason for the federal government to preserve them.

All that said, I am by no means sure the NCAA will lose an anti-trust case on the issue of direct player compensation. A powerful argument against it would be de factor precedent - the anti-trust laws have been on the books for 100+ years, and during all that time the NCAA has run athletics on a no-compensation model, so if that model violates anti-trust laws, why wasn't it struck down immediately back in 1910 or whatever? The century-long coexistence of the NCAA model with anti-trust law strongly suggests that whatever the framers of anti-Trust legislation were trying to accomplish with their law, it was not intended to require payment to college athletes.

You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

Again that doesn't impact Division II and III.

What about musicians or band members who are required to do certain concerts without pay as part of a scholarship or part of being a member? And in HBCUs, the bands bring in more fans than the football teams.

(02-18-2020 02:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 02:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 02:14 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  You can't force the schools to give compensation. So I don't think there is any threat to Division III and Division II. There are also very few athletes with professional potential and probably no money making sports in those divisions.

Could all Division I refuse to pay? Maybe. But I doubt it. The NCAA would simply have to have a division that allowed it. If everyone refused could they get sued again for collusion? Maybe. But it still wouldn't affect Division II and III.

There are labor laws. To classify a position as a volunteer and thus no pay it has to meet certain criteria otherwise you do have to pay the minimum wage. Football player may not qualify as a volunteer job. So courts could rule that if you want to have a football team you have to pay players.

Also, even if they don't require pay, if the courts rule no pay rules violate antitrust, what surely would be illegal is a rule saying you cannot pay, so all it would take is one college to break ranks and start paying and that would end that as the NCAA could not punish them.

I haven't read most of this thread but if...if a court ruled that the NCAA couldn't have any rules limiting schools compensating players in any way they want by way of antitrust rules you'd basically see the damn break. Boosters of schools could recruit and pay players directly, schools could offer any kind of incentives, etc. So say some schools say nah, we're going to offer scholarship, room and board and COA stipend and only want to play against schools that do the same. You couldn't very well make the argument that they are breaking antitrust rules when there are schools that are doing otherwise and other opportunities available.

I don't think that would be legal, it would be collusion among those schools to limit wages. Just as it would be illegal for say the fast food chains to agree amongst each other not to pay more than minimum wage. Wouldn't matter to a court that the employees could work elsewhere

They're not wages as they're not employees.

But for the sake of argument, we're not talking fast food chains. What's the one industry where salary caps are not only permitted but common?

That's the industry in which salary caps are part of a labor agreement that was collectively bargained between management and a union representing the workers, as permitted by federal law.

Without the certified union and the collective bargaining agreement, the salary caps would be illegal. The NCAA used to have a rule capping the earnings of one assistant coach on each FBS football team. The capped coaches sued the NCAA, and the courts ruled that the NCAA's rule was illegal.