Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
'A nightmare for college athletics'
Author Message
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,525
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #141
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Interesting Question.

Let’s say the NCAA creates a new FFA (Football Free Agent) Subdivision in D-1. No compensation limits what so ever in FFA. The new subdivision is announced and—after careful study, no P5 or G5 conference moves to that subdivision. Is the NCAA still in violation of antitrust laws? There is no longer an NCAA ban on paying players. But if no school believes they can make money using that model (ie—no investor believes the risk will payoff in a profit), how can a court demand they provide paying jobs? I can’t demand a company give a me job writing a blog if no company thinks they can make money paying me for a blog. So—would the NCAA be in compliance with antitrust laws simply by creating the FFA subdivision—even if no teams compete there.
02-18-2020 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,652
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #142
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-18-2020 03:55 PM)bullet 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.

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.

I think if the courts ruled that bans on pay violated anti-trust laws, that would apply to all schools regardless of division. The courts could care less about FBS, FCS, D2, D3. The NCAA would be barred from banning pay for players at all schools, period. By which I mean either (a) the NCAA would be enjoined from barring member schools from paying players if they choose to, or (b) the court could be more forceful and actually compel colleges to pay players if they have athletic teams. Not sure, but either way, NCAA divisions won't matter. The NCAA could not have a division that is defined by schools not paying players, as that definition would then be in violation of antitrust laws.

About the bands and cheerleaders, you make a good point. If football players are doing work that requires pay, than you could make the same argument about them as well. Which is one reason why I am not sure the courts will ever rule that the NCAA can't enforce its ban on pay for players.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2020 07:43 PM by quo vadis.)
02-18-2020 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,652
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #143
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-18-2020 05:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interesting Question.

Let’s say the NCAA creates a new FFA (Football Free Agent) Subdivision in D-1. No compensation limits what so ever in FFA. The new subdivision is announced and—after careful study, no P5 or G5 conference moves to that subdivision. Is the NCAA still in violation of antitrust laws? There is no longer an NCAA ban on paying players. But if no school believes they can make money using that model (ie—no investor believes the risk will payoff in a profit), how can a court demand they provide paying jobs? I can’t demand a company give a me job writing a blog if no company thinks they can make money paying me for a blog. So—would the NCAA be in compliance with antitrust laws simply by creating the FFA subdivision—even if no teams compete there.

There are labor laws that define voluntary work. The courts historically are very leery of big organizations using their superior power to compel low-level members to "volunteer" for stuff that they would really rather be paid for. The FLSA e.g. has as one of its guidelines "Are the services of the kind typically associated with volunteer work?"

Since "college football player" is not historically such a service, i would suspect that the courts would likely rule that athletes are not volunteers and must be paid. Now, the courts can't compel the amount paid, so long as it meets the minimum wage.

Interestingly, if you look at the hours an athlete spend in practice and games, etc. and multiply it by the minimum wage, it comes out to about the value of a full scholarship, which would then meet the legal standard.
02-18-2020 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #144
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs
02-21-2020 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,525
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #145
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 04:34 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-21-2020 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #146
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.

The NCAA hasn't actually caved on NIL, though. That's the one fault I find with the plaintiffs' brief; they assume (or pretend to believe) that the NCAA has caved. I think the appeals panel might be more interested in the fact that the Cali law and the dozens of other proposed laws undermines the NCAA's argument that fans don't want NCAA athletes to profit from their athleticism and that they won't watch if athletes are paid directly.
02-21-2020 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,652
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #147
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.

I read the NCAA's brief, they say that the committee formed to study NIL is in its "exploratory stages" and thus the recommendations they may make are unknown, and in any event the NCAA "remain(s) both committed to their longstanding principle of amateurism and opposed to permitting student-athletes to receive NIL payments that could serve as pay-for-play."

I guess the court could view the formation of a study group as conceding the validity of NIL payments, but the NCAA is trying their best here to negate that notion.

But I agree the NCAA is in a bind here. They seem to be spinning this study group different ways to different audiences, that is, to states that are thinking about emulating California they seem to be saying "wait, we've got this process going to address it, this is serious, give it a chance first" but to the court they are downplaying it as an exploratory thing and who knows what it will do and no reason to jump to conclusions that the NCAA will be adopting NIL.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 06:01 PM by quo vadis.)
02-21-2020 05:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #148
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.

I read the NCAA's brief, they say that the committee formed to study NIL is in its "exploratory stages" and thus the recommendations they may make are unknown, and in any event the NCAA "remain(s) both committed to their longstanding principle of amateurism and opposed to permitting student-athletes to receive NIL payments that could serve as pay-for-play."

I guess the court could view the formation of a study group as conceding the validity of NIL payments, but the NCAA is trying their best here to negate that notion.

But I agree the NCAA is in a bind here. They seem to be spinning this study group different ways to different audiences, that is, to states that are thinking about emulating California they seem to be saying "wait, we've got this process going to address it, this is serious, give it a chance first" but to the court they are downplaying it as an exploratory thing and who knows what it will do and no reason to jump to conclusions that the NCAA will be adopting NIL.

Yes! I bet that if the NCAA powers who be could speak to the judges privately they'd be all "Look guys, we have NO intention of voluntarily allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals or accept appearance fees, etc."

But they can't admit to that publicly because then legislatures everywhere would come down on them with a vengeance not yet seen.

The NCAA's faux surrender a while back was just a stall. When you don't know what to do you just stall. Stall and hope.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 06:18 PM by chester.)
02-21-2020 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,363
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1318
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #149
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.

NCAA was selling posters with players' likenesses. There's just no way to justify that. With NIL they are letting them do those things. Its totally different legally. Although it is a bit of the camel's nose in the tent politically.
02-21-2020 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,525
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #150
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 06:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.

NCAA was selling posters with players' likenesses. There's just no way to justify that. With NIL they are letting them do those things. Its totally different legally. Although it is a bit of the camel's nose in the tent politically.

Oh I agree---lol---That NIL train was leaving the station with or without them----Im just saying that it may end up having far bigger ramifications if the judge gives the plaintiffs what they want (full free agency). Honestly, I dont know how she got to the ruling she made since she admitted that the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws by capping compensation. Then in her ruling---she simply set a new--slightly higher---compensation cap that said all compensation had to be "limited only to educational benefit".

Now that the NCAA has all but given into NIL----that "educational only benefit" firewall has been quickly and effectively breached. I dont think she really wants to destroy college sports----but I think she may now be backed into a corner where she has no choice but to grant full free agency---even though I think she realizes doing so would likely destroy the vast majority of educational opportunities for college athletes. The law is the law.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 07:32 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-21-2020 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,525
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #151
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance. And frankly, pro issues (outrageous contract demands, hold outs, buying championships, lack of player loyalty, even strikes) are absolutely going erode the sports support and fan base. Its also shows a complete lack of understanding of the sports current structure if anyone thinks a change to free agency isnt going to destroy massive swaths of college sports. There is a reason Wilkins ruled the way she did---she knows free agency is the correct ruling per the law. She also understands free agency will only benefit a few hundred athletes while wiping out the vast majority of the athletic educational opportunities that the vast majority of college athletes rely on.

https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/...-campaign/
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 08:37 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-21-2020 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 222
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #152
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 06:16 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 05:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 02:45 PM)chester Wrote:  On the subject of both NIL and antitrust, yesterday both sides in Alston vs NCAA filed court-ordered briefs explaining "what impact, if any" California's new law has on the case. Via Sportsgeekonomics:

Defendants

Plaintiffs

I admit I only skimmed the submissions, but I think caving to NIL may have severely undermined the NCAA case. They may have really stepped in it here—through I’m not sure they had many alternatives. Hard for me to see how this judge is going to be able to allow anything less than full on free agency if the NCAA undermines the Judges prior ruling by allowing NIL compensation over and above educational related compensation.

The only defense the NCAA seems to raise in their submission is that this occurred after the trial record closed so it shouldn’t be considered. That’s not much of a defense.

I read the NCAA's brief, they say that the committee formed to study NIL is in its "exploratory stages" and thus the recommendations they may make are unknown, and in any event the NCAA "remain(s) both committed to their longstanding principle of amateurism and opposed to permitting student-athletes to receive NIL payments that could serve as pay-for-play."

I guess the court could view the formation of a study group as conceding the validity of NIL payments, but the NCAA is trying their best here to negate that notion.

But I agree the NCAA is in a bind here. They seem to be spinning this study group different ways to different audiences, that is, to states that are thinking about emulating California they seem to be saying "wait, we've got this process going to address it, this is serious, give it a chance first" but to the court they are downplaying it as an exploratory thing and who knows what it will do and no reason to jump to conclusions that the NCAA will be adopting NIL.

Yes! I bet that if the NCAA powers who be could speak to the judges privately they'd be all "Look guys, we have NO intention of voluntarily allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals or accept appearance fees, etc."

But they can't admit to that publicly because then legislatures everywhere would come down on them with a vengeance not yet seen.

The NCAA's faux surrender a while back was just a stall. When you don't know what to do you just stall. Stall and hope.

I think the current position from the NCAA is something like:

We need California (and other states) to give us more time. We've got a working group going. But they won't have a recommendation for awhile. But I can tell you ahead of time, before the group even convenes, the recommendation won't be the same or similar to what California is proposing. It will be a lot more restrictive. But we think if California just gives us more time, they'll be happy with this totally different thing that we propose. And also we need Congress to intervene and standardize things because we know what we propose won't make the states happy.
02-21-2020 10:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,652
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #153
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance.

Um, I don't think any conference or schools would rather go back to the pre-1984 days of a couple of games on TV each weekend and the non-existent payouts of that era. I would bet 99% of all schools will gladly accept attendance falling to 1997 levels or worse to have the exposure and money of today's TV, and surely fans prefer it as well.

I mean, the schools could go back to the old NCAA-dominant regime any time they want to. None want to.
02-21-2020 11:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #154
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance. And frankly, pro issues (outrageous contract demands, hold outs, buying championships, lack of player loyalty, even strikes) are absolutely going erode the sports support and fan base. Its also shows a complete lack of understanding of the sports current structure if anyone thinks a change to free agency isnt going to destroy massive swaths of college sports. There is a reason Wilkins ruled the way she did---she knows free agency is the correct ruling per the law. She also understands free agency will only benefit a few hundred athletes while wiping out the vast majority of the athletic educational opportunities that the vast majority of college athletes rely on.

https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/...-campaign/

She didn't say anything like that in her ruling. Not that I recall, anyway.
02-21-2020 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #155
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 10:11 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  I think the current position from the NCAA is something like:

We need California (and other states) to give us more time. We've got a working group going. But they won't have a recommendation for awhile. But I can tell you ahead of time, before the group even convenes, the recommendation won't be the same or similar to what California is proposing. It will be a lot more restrictive. But we think if California just gives us more time, they'll be happy with this totally different thing that we propose. And also we need Congress to intervene and standardize things because we know what we propose won't make the states happy.

This makes sense. And while they're talking to Congress, they might as well try for the grand prize, an antitrust exemption.
02-21-2020 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,525
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #156
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:03 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance. And frankly, pro issues (outrageous contract demands, hold outs, buying championships, lack of player loyalty, even strikes) are absolutely going erode the sports support and fan base. Its also shows a complete lack of understanding of the sports current structure if anyone thinks a change to free agency isnt going to destroy massive swaths of college sports. There is a reason Wilkins ruled the way she did---she knows free agency is the correct ruling per the law. She also understands free agency will only benefit a few hundred athletes while wiping out the vast majority of the athletic educational opportunities that the vast majority of college athletes rely on.

https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/...-campaign/

She didn't say anything like that in her ruling. Not that I recall, anyway.

Correct—but it’s also the only explanation for her ruling. She ruled capping athletes compensation is an antitrust violation and then issued a ruling that capped compensation. It’s basically the kind of ruling you see where the plaintiff is right—but the enforcement of the law does more harm than good. I mean, if you look at the law, I just don’t see how you can’t rule the NCAA is illegally colluding to limit player compensation and grant the players the right of full free agency. The only hope college sports has is some sort an antitrust exemption.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 11:27 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-21-2020 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #157
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:03 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance. And frankly, pro issues (outrageous contract demands, hold outs, buying championships, lack of player loyalty, even strikes) are absolutely going erode the sports support and fan base. Its also shows a complete lack of understanding of the sports current structure if anyone thinks a change to free agency isnt going to destroy massive swaths of college sports. There is a reason Wilkins ruled the way she did---she knows free agency is the correct ruling per the law. She also understands free agency will only benefit a few hundred athletes while wiping out the vast majority of the athletic educational opportunities that the vast majority of college athletes rely on.

https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/...-campaign/

She didn't say anything like that in her ruling. Not that I recall, anyway.

Correct—but it’s also the only explanation for her ruling. She ruled capping athletes compensation is an antitrust violation and then issued a ruling that capped compensation.

Listen, I think her reasoning for not enjoining caps on non-education related compensation is goofy (found it btw, pages 54-55) but she never said or implied what you seem to think her true reason was.

EDIT: Defendants never even argued that pay for play will wipe out educational opportunities. They offered two "pro-competitive" justifications for caps: keeping non-athletes from being jealous of athletes (lulz) and maintaining demand for the product.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 11:32 PM by chester.)
02-21-2020 11:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,525
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #158
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:23 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:03 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance. And frankly, pro issues (outrageous contract demands, hold outs, buying championships, lack of player loyalty, even strikes) are absolutely going erode the sports support and fan base. Its also shows a complete lack of understanding of the sports current structure if anyone thinks a change to free agency isnt going to destroy massive swaths of college sports. There is a reason Wilkins ruled the way she did---she knows free agency is the correct ruling per the law. She also understands free agency will only benefit a few hundred athletes while wiping out the vast majority of the athletic educational opportunities that the vast majority of college athletes rely on.

https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/...-campaign/

She didn't say anything like that in her ruling. Not that I recall, anyway.

Correct—but it’s also the only explanation for her ruling. She ruled capping athletes compensation is an antitrust violation and then issued a ruling that capped compensation.

Listen, I think her reasoning for not enjoining caps on non-education related compensation is goofy (found it btw, pages 54-55) but she never said or implied what you seem to think her true reason was.

EDIT: Defendants never even argued that pay for play will wipe out educational opportunities. They offered two "pro-competitive" justifications for caps: keeping non-athletes from being jealous of athletes (lulz) and maintaining demand for the product.

Honestly--nobody ever touched on any of unintended ramifications of eliminating all caps on college athletics. That said---is it really that hard to see a fairly decent number of schools, unable to compete---dropping down---vastly cutting back on sports or dropping them altogether in a free agent environment? One need not envision a virtual Armageddon end of all college athletics to see a serious reduction in athletic scholarship opportunities could occur if free agency was instituted. I actually find it a little strange that the scenario I brought up (where P5's drop down to a scholarship only level) was never even discussed or touched on as best I know---which is odd since the Big10 commissioner publicly said that was exactly what they would do if pay-for-play was instituted.

It seems clear to me that the plaintiffs are correct in this case--but the judge simply didnt want to go that far. My assumption is she kinda see's the fallout being similar to what I think it will be---but thats not the law and thats not evidence that was submitted in her court (to the best of my knowledge). So--it seems like she simply got where she wanted to go using what she had to work with....just my humble opinion.
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2020 12:05 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-21-2020 11:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #159
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:23 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:03 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance. And frankly, pro issues (outrageous contract demands, hold outs, buying championships, lack of player loyalty, even strikes) are absolutely going erode the sports support and fan base. Its also shows a complete lack of understanding of the sports current structure if anyone thinks a change to free agency isnt going to destroy massive swaths of college sports. There is a reason Wilkins ruled the way she did---she knows free agency is the correct ruling per the law. She also understands free agency will only benefit a few hundred athletes while wiping out the vast majority of the athletic educational opportunities that the vast majority of college athletes rely on.

https://advocacyforfairnessinsports.org/...-campaign/

She didn't say anything like that in her ruling. Not that I recall, anyway.

Correct—but it’s also the only explanation for her ruling. She ruled capping athletes compensation is an antitrust violation and then issued a ruling that capped compensation.

Listen, I think her reasoning for not enjoining caps on non-education related compensation is goofy (found it btw, pages 54-55) but she never said or implied what you seem to think her true reason was.

EDIT: Defendants never even argued that pay for play will wipe out educational opportunities. They offered two "pro-competitive" justifications for caps: keeping non-athletes from being jealous of athletes (lulz) and maintaining demand for the product.

Honestly--nobody ever touched on any of unintended ramifications of eliminating all caps on college athletics. That said---is it really that hard to see a fairly decent number of schools, unable to compete---dropping down---vastly cutting back on sports or dropping them altogether in a free agent environment? One need not envision a virtual Armageddon end of all college athletics to see a serious reduction in athletic scholarship opportunities could occur if free agency was instituted. I actually find it a little strange that the scenario I brought up (where P5's drop down to a scholarship only level) was never even discussed or touched on as best I know---which is odd since the Big10 commissioner publicly said that was exactly what they would do if pay-for-play was instituted.

It seems clear to me that the plaintiffs are correct in this case--but the judge simply didnt want to go that far. My assumption is she kinda see's the fallout being similar to what I think it will be---but thats not the law and thats not evidence that was submitted in her court (to the best of my knowledge). So--it seems like she simply got where she wanted to go using what she had to work with....just my humble opinion.

Absent sufficient sport-specific donations for unnecessary non-revenue sports in a pay for play environment, no, it's not difficult to imagine losses here and there. The difference between you and I, I guess, is that I see that as a proper correction and you see it as a regrettable loss of something you hold dear. We may disagree, but I do appreciate your passion.

Regarding the case, I can't explain the district court's ruling in light of the first 50 pages or so. It's crazy, really. Anyway, one would think that plaintiffs have a good chance of gaining the broad relief they're after here on appeal.
02-22-2020 01:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #160
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 10:11 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  I think the current position from the NCAA is something like:

We need California (and other states) to give us more time. We've got a working group going. But they won't have a recommendation for awhile. But I can tell you ahead of time, before the group even convenes, the recommendation won't be the same or similar to what California is proposing. It will be a lot more restrictive. But we think if California just gives us more time, they'll be happy with this totally different thing that we propose. And also we need Congress to intervene and standardize things because we know what we propose won't make the states happy.

You know, another horror facing the NCAA is the specter of a state laws that would take effect in 2020. Florida has looked to be just such a state but one of its two active bills was recently amended to delay implementation to 2021. The writing may be on the wall regarding the other one...

There are still a few bills out there that could become operative this year. One of Tennessee's bills would be particularly troublesome to the NCAA. HB 2649/SB 2804 is the only state bill that meets all three of these:
  1. Avoids the commerce clause
  2. Is not more restrictive than the California law
  3. Would take effect this year

Quote:For those who have been watching, one of TN's two NIL bills has a "James Wiseman" clause:

"A public institution of higher education shall not...Discriminate against a student athlete based on an athletic coach's donation to the public institution of higher education."

So HB 2649/SB 2804 is not the Tennessee bill that contains that provision, that's another one -- one that meets criteria 1 & 2 above but not 3.

But the sponsors of HB 2649/SB 2804 have a separate bill that would accomplish the same thing and more. A bill that, if made law, would send the NCAA into all manner of paroxysms. Check it out:

Quote:A public institution of higher education that participates in intercollegiate athletic competition as a member institution of an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, shall not in any way penalize a student athlete...based on gifts, benefits, or inducements given to the student athlete or the student athlete's family by a booster...This act shall take effect July 1, 2020, the public welfare requiring it.

They may have messed with the wrong state! 03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao
02-22-2020 02:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.