(05-19-2020 12:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:17 PM)chester Wrote:  So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."

Quote:Finally, Student-Athletes argue that the NCAA may no longer rely on O’Bannon II’s conclusion that NCAA limits on cash payments untethered to education are critical to preserving the distinction between college and professional sports now that it has "endorse[d]" the very "same NIL benefits" at issue there. This argument is premature. As it stands, the NCAA has not endorsed cash compensation untethered to education; instead, it has undertaken to comply with the FPP Act in a manner that is consistent with O’Bannon II—that is, by loosening its restrictions to permit NIL benefits that are "tethered to education."

If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:

Quote:In March 2014, while the NCAA was litigating O’Bannon I, FBS football and D1 men’s and women’s basketball players filed several antitrust actions against the NCAA and eleven D1 conferences that were transferred to and, with one exception, consolidated before the same district court presiding over O’Bannon I. Rather than confining their challenge to rules prohibiting NIL compensation, StudentAthletes sought to dismantle the NCAA's entire compensation framework.

...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

JR, I 100% agree with you. Absolutely! Problem is, the SEC and the rest of the Ps don't agree with us. We Ps have all long been the prime perpetrators of this crime against valuable athletes, for we attract the most valuable among them but still subjugate them to fake "amateurism". To formally withdraw from the Cartel is admit that there is some distinction between ourselves and the rest, which would make it ever more difficult to rob folks under the guise, the lie of "amateurism."

What we really need is for fans of Ps to demand that the athletes be treated properly. I refuse to believe that that the level of pay has anything at all to do with why we support our teams. No, it's because they attend our schools...

(05-19-2020 02:03 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 12:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:17 PM)chester Wrote:  So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."

Quote:Finally, Student-Athletes argue that the NCAA may no longer rely on O’Bannon II’s conclusion that NCAA limits on cash payments untethered to education are critical to preserving the distinction between college and professional sports now that it has "endorse[d]" the very "same NIL benefits" at issue there. This argument is premature. As it stands, the NCAA has not endorsed cash compensation untethered to education; instead, it has undertaken to comply with the FPP Act in a manner that is consistent with O’Bannon II—that is, by loosening its restrictions to permit NIL benefits that are "tethered to education."

If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:

Quote:In March 2014, while the NCAA was litigating O’Bannon I, FBS football and D1 men’s and women’s basketball players filed several antitrust actions against the NCAA and eleven D1 conferences that were transferred to and, with one exception, consolidated before the same district court presiding over O’Bannon I. Rather than confining their challenge to rules prohibiting NIL compensation, StudentAthletes sought to dismantle the NCAA's entire compensation framework.

...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

JR, I 100% agree with you. Absolutely! Problem is, the SEC and the rest of the Ps don't agree with us. We Ps have all long been the prime perpetrators of this crime against valuable athletes, for we attract the most valuable among them but still subjugate them to fake "amateurism". To formally withdraw from the Cartel is admit that there is some distinction between ourselves and the rest, which would make it ever more difficult to rob folks under the guise, the lie of "amateurism."

What we really need is for fans of Ps to demand that the athletes be treated properly. I refuse to believe that that the level of pay has anything at all to do with why we support our teams. No, it's because they attend our schools...

Estimates for a breakaway P league, whether that is 2 to 4 conferences playing a self contained schedule is between 110 million per to 120 million. If that doesn't grab the attention of the AD's and Presidents to make this move nothing ever will, especially with what they are facing right now in shortfalls.

They should, for publicity's sake, be thinking of distancing themselves from a NCAA which is going to come out of this as the poster child of the plantation owner. The sooner we get ahead of this the better off we are.

I'm assuming that the upper tier would consist of between 48 to 56 schools after a few privates bow out of football, concentrate on basketball, and maybe a couple of G5's try to make the jump in investment level.

The natural winnowing of programs who won't or can't compete in a system that compensates and insures players will permit us to define whose in by voluntary association and established minimums will take care of the pretenders.

Then we need to get about ensuring that rivals are kept, regional scheduling for fans observed as much as is practical, and 1 or 2 OOC games of interest are played a year.

The structure needs to take care of the playoff participants based on seasonal long on field performance.

Build a winner of a system and it will stay a winner.

(05-19-2020 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 02:03 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 12:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:17 PM)chester Wrote:  So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."

Quote:Finally, Student-Athletes argue that the NCAA may no longer rely on O’Bannon II’s conclusion that NCAA limits on cash payments untethered to education are critical to preserving the distinction between college and professional sports now that it has "endorse[d]" the very "same NIL benefits" at issue there. This argument is premature. As it stands, the NCAA has not endorsed cash compensation untethered to education; instead, it has undertaken to comply with the FPP Act in a manner that is consistent with O’Bannon II—that is, by loosening its restrictions to permit NIL benefits that are "tethered to education."

If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:

Quote:In March 2014, while the NCAA was litigating O’Bannon I, FBS football and D1 men’s and women’s basketball players filed several antitrust actions against the NCAA and eleven D1 conferences that were transferred to and, with one exception, consolidated before the same district court presiding over O’Bannon I. Rather than confining their challenge to rules prohibiting NIL compensation, StudentAthletes sought to dismantle the NCAA's entire compensation framework.

...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

JR, I 100% agree with you. Absolutely! Problem is, the SEC and the rest of the Ps don't agree with us. We Ps have all long been the prime perpetrators of this crime against valuable athletes, for we attract the most valuable among them but still subjugate them to fake "amateurism". To formally withdraw from the Cartel is admit that there is some distinction between ourselves and the rest, which would make it ever more difficult to rob folks under the guise, the lie of "amateurism."

What we really need is for fans of Ps to demand that the athletes be treated properly. I refuse to believe that that the level of pay has anything at all to do with why we support our teams. No, it's because they attend our schools...

Estimates for a breakaway P league, whether that is 2 to 4 conferences playing a self contained schedule is between 110 million per to 120 million. If that doesn't grab the attention of the AD's and Presidents to make this move nothing ever will, especially with what they are facing right now in shortfalls.

They should, for publicity's sake, be thinking of distancing themselves from a NCAA which is going to come out of this as the poster child of the plantation owner. The sooner we get ahead of this the better off we are.

I'm assuming that the upper tier would consist of between 48 to 56 schools after a few privates bow out of football, concentrate on basketball, and maybe a couple of G5's try to make the jump in investment level.

The natural winnowing of programs who won't or can't compete in a system that compensates and insures players will permit us to define whose in by voluntary association and established minimums will take care of the pretenders.

Then we need to get about ensuring that rivals are kept, regional scheduling for fans observed as much as is practical, and 1 or 2 OOC games of interest are played a year.

The structure needs to take care of the playoff participants based on seasonal long on field performance.

Build a winner of a system and it will stay a winner.

JR, here again I agree, but here again I thinlk that the SEC and the rest disagree with you and I. We, the P5 ARE the plantation owners. We conrol it all. We've shown zero willingness to treat the athletes fairly and have shown zero willingness to depart from the rest even if it means more money in the bank.

We area the sinners. We are the asshats controlling the whole charade. Things won't change until such time as we the fans or the courts or Congress force change. It's that simple. Meantime, we suuuck. We ALL suck.

(05-19-2020 06:38 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 02:03 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 12:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:17 PM)chester Wrote:  So, setting aside Alston and the prospect of SCOTUS involvement, there might be two antitrust suits on the horizon. The NCAA appears to have bought itself some time by declaring in 2019 that any permissible NIL-related compensation to athletes must be "tethered to education."


If the NCAA does allow NIL compensation in ways untethered to education in Jan 2021 or later, it would surely lead to another O'Bannon-type case.

Then there's this:


...Believe that one exception is the Jenkins aka "Kessler" case. I had thought it was consolidated with Alston but Gabe Feldman of Tulane Sports Law (@SportsLawGuy) recently stated in a podcast that Jenkins might be still be tried in New Jersey... Have since learned that the NCAA and other Alston defendants asked Judge Wilkens after her ruling in Alston to dismiss Jenkins. To my knowledge, she's not yet taken any action therewith.

The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

JR, I 100% agree with you. Absolutely! Problem is, the SEC and the rest of the Ps don't agree with us. We Ps have all long been the prime perpetrators of this crime against valuable athletes, for we attract the most valuable among them but still subjugate them to fake "amateurism". To formally withdraw from the Cartel is admit that there is some distinction between ourselves and the rest, which would make it ever more difficult to rob folks under the guise, the lie of "amateurism."

What we really need is for fans of Ps to demand that the athletes be treated properly. I refuse to believe that that the level of pay has anything at all to do with why we support our teams. No, it's because they attend our schools...

Estimates for a breakaway P league, whether that is 2 to 4 conferences playing a self contained schedule is between 110 million per to 120 million. If that doesn't grab the attention of the AD's and Presidents to make this move nothing ever will, especially with what they are facing right now in shortfalls.

They should, for publicity's sake, be thinking of distancing themselves from a NCAA which is going to come out of this as the poster child of the plantation owner. The sooner we get ahead of this the better off we are.

I'm assuming that the upper tier would consist of between 48 to 56 schools after a few privates bow out of football, concentrate on basketball, and maybe a couple of G5's try to make the jump in investment level.

The natural winnowing of programs who won't or can't compete in a system that compensates and insures players will permit us to define whose in by voluntary association and established minimums will take care of the pretenders.

Then we need to get about ensuring that rivals are kept, regional scheduling for fans observed as much as is practical, and 1 or 2 OOC games of interest are played a year.

The structure needs to take care of the playoff participants based on seasonal long on field performance.

Build a winner of a system and it will stay a winner.

JR, here again I agree, but here again I thinlk that the SEC and the rest disagree with you and I. We, the P5 ARE the plantation owners. We conrol it all. We've shown zero willingness to treat the athletes fairly and have shown zero willingness to depart from the rest even if it means more money in the bank.

We area the sinners. We are the asshats controlling the whole charade. Things won't change until such time as we the fans or the courts or Congress force change. It's that simple. Meantime, we suuuck. We ALL suck.

Chester, I got it the first time. I'm doing what I can to send a Sicilian message. Oddly enough I have readers. We are most definitely guilty, but what I'm saying is here's our chance to hang it on the NCAA and get out a helluva lot cleaner than we will ever be able to in the future if we wait. They need to hear this. And I agree that fans everywhere need to write their president and their AD's. Culturally we are on a precipice and we can either look like leaders, or get pushed off into the ravine. I simply favor the former as you do.

What they don't realize are the enormous benefits of setting up such an arrangement. The players are then subject to image standards of the university in ways they've never been able to be held accountable before and we can tell them up front it is all in preparation of what the NFL is going to ask as well. Now instead of being the social underclass on campus they will be part of the face of the program in ways nobody would have ever permitted in the past.

The whole move removes recruiting stigma, makes honest the old payola by boosters, makes the kids honest taxpayers instead of crooked amateurs, and it sets a tone for a kind of discipline that has heretofore not existed. Now if you get drunk or shoplift you are the face of the program and breach will be summarily dealt with and careers over. No more shuffling off quietly to play somewhere else. Image conscious schools won't like taking those who had to be dismissed with cause, as opposed to players rumored to have had difficulties.

(05-19-2020 06:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 06:38 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 02:03 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 12:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The P5 needs to acquiesce to these pending changes and use it as a reason to leave the NCAA (which will only stall) behind. With the world of hurt the universities have suffered with the virus shutdown maximizing our revenue in basketball is as worthy of goal (ala OU/UGa vs the NCAA) as we could possibly have. We can make the changes the norm quickly and move past the NCAA and past the court rulings and into some much needed stable operations by utilizing this moment in time to make changes. Otherwise the NCAA is going to incumber each school with their stalling tactics. If we stay that course we'll all suffer all the more.

The golden days of private contributions to athletic funds is probably past peak now and with the looming economic fallout likely not to return, at least not for many years. We need to maximize all revenue streams as soon as possible. It's time to embrace the changes and move on.

JR, I 100% agree with you. Absolutely! Problem is, the SEC and the rest of the Ps don't agree with us. We Ps have all long been the prime perpetrators of this crime against valuable athletes, for we attract the most valuable among them but still subjugate them to fake "amateurism". To formally withdraw from the Cartel is admit that there is some distinction between ourselves and the rest, which would make it ever more difficult to rob folks under the guise, the lie of "amateurism."

What we really need is for fans of Ps to demand that the athletes be treated properly. I refuse to believe that that the level of pay has anything at all to do with why we support our teams. No, it's because they attend our schools...

Estimates for a breakaway P league, whether that is 2 to 4 conferences playing a self contained schedule is between 110 million per to 120 million. If that doesn't grab the attention of the AD's and Presidents to make this move nothing ever will, especially with what they are facing right now in shortfalls.

They should, for publicity's sake, be thinking of distancing themselves from a NCAA which is going to come out of this as the poster child of the plantation owner. The sooner we get ahead of this the better off we are.

I'm assuming that the upper tier would consist of between 48 to 56 schools after a few privates bow out of football, concentrate on basketball, and maybe a couple of G5's try to make the jump in investment level.

The natural winnowing of programs who won't or can't compete in a system that compensates and insures players will permit us to define whose in by voluntary association and established minimums will take care of the pretenders.

Then we need to get about ensuring that rivals are kept, regional scheduling for fans observed as much as is practical, and 1 or 2 OOC games of interest are played a year.

The structure needs to take care of the playoff participants based on seasonal long on field performance.

Build a winner of a system and it will stay a winner.

JR, here again I agree, but here again I thinlk that the SEC and the rest disagree with you and I. We, the P5 ARE the plantation owners. We conrol it all. We've shown zero willingness to treat the athletes fairly and have shown zero willingness to depart from the rest even if it means more money in the bank.

We area the sinners. We are the asshats controlling the whole charade. Things won't change until such time as we the fans or the courts or Congress force change. It's that simple. Meantime, we suuuck. We ALL suck.

Chester, I got it the first time. I'm doing what I can to send a Sicilian message. Oddly enough I have readers. We are most definitely guilty, but what I'm saying is here's our chance to hang it on the NCAA and get out a helluva lot cleaner than we will ever be able to in the future if we wait. They need to hear this. And I agree that fans everywhere need to write their president and their AD's. Culturally we are on a precipice and we can either look like leaders, or get pushed off into the ravine. I simply favor the former as you do.

What they don't realize are the enormous benefits of setting up such an arrangement. The players are then subject to image standards of the university in ways they've never been able to be held accountable before and we can tell them up front it is all in preparation of what the NFL is going to ask as well. Now instead of being the social underclass on campus they will be part of the face of the program in ways nobody would have ever permitted in the past.

The whole move removes recruiting stigma, makes honest the old payola by boosters, makes the kids honest taxpayers instead of crooked amateurs, and it sets a tone for a kind of discipline that has heretofore not existed. Now if you get drunk or shoplift you are the face of the program and breach will be summarily dealt with and careers over. No more shuffling off quietly to play somewhere else. Image conscious schools won't like taking those who had to be dismissed with cause, as opposed to players rumored to have had difficulties.

Many Olympic sports are losers money-wise. I'll show my cards here and say that I tend toward the conservative side of the political spectrum. That's pertinent because of one thing: Title IX. Schools can't just cut drastically all non-money making sports, because then, in most schools, there would be no "womens sports." Obviously there are exceptions (UConn women's basketball, maybe a few softball programs, etc.)

But, what if college sports truly became separate not just from the NCAA but from the college itself. Colleges no longer offer ANY athletic scholarships.

BUT: College sports still exist, just no longer associated with the school in the same way. Eligibility to play in the college sports leagues is still based on college attendance/full-time enrollment in an undergraduate program, with 4-6 years of eligibility.

In other words, college sports become a professional minor league. The "Tennessee Vols" still have orange and white as their predominant colors (they would have to sign a contract for the rights to those colors with the university), but now they can recruit any player they want, offer any $ they want. And players can sign contracts for any length they want with opt-out clauses built in.

So if I am high school senior and decide I want to play for the football team Tennessee Vols, then I sign a contract for X amount and agree to play for four years. There is no scholarship, but my salary covers my tuition/room and board, other fees, +.

I have an opt-out in my contract that opens up if the coach changes as well as one that states that I can opt-out if I am not getting at least x % of the possible snaps, etc. Then I could be a free agent and go to another school. When my four years are up, I could stay for a 5th year as I do graduate work, or I could be a free agent and go somewhere else.

It would work for the revenue sports.

The Olympic sports would be separate too, and thus avoid Title IX issues. There is now just, for instance, an NACSC (National Association for College Swimming Competitions). There is a a CGCA (College Gymnastics Competition Association). There is a FCVL (Federal College Volleyball League). Each could have corporate sponsors, and each would make only as much as the free market permitted. On top of those salaries, a private company could simply hire an athlete from one of the Olympic sports as a commercial actor, or pay for their endorsement. In an Olympic year, those commercial prices go up and the athletes make more money.

But the school is not hemorrhaging money for non-viable sports, and does not run afoul of Title IX issues.

I guess what I am talking about is one step removed from a "student-athlete" but the requirement would be that the athletes still be students. You could even put in minimum GPA requirements.

The "top tier" could still give back to universities if they wanted, but there would be no necessary formal relationship.

I hope this idea makes at least some sense.

One step closer...

The NCAA had asked the Ninth to stay the injunction in early July, just prior to the scheduled issuance of the mandate, saying they intend to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari. https://t.co/ZXF19vC5E2?amp=1:

IIRC the NCAA has until early October to file its last appeal. Wonder how long they have to ask SCOTUS for a stay??

BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

(08-04-2020 06:23 PM)chester Wrote:  

IIRC the NCAA has until early October to file its last appeal. Wonder how long they have to ask SCOTUS for a stay??

BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

I see these all as great reasons for the P5 to make that breakaway, monetize basketball fully, and enhance the revenue of baseball and hockey by owing the CWS and the Frozen Four, and setting their own pay limits which is what they want to do. I think this is what the tried to petition Congress for advice in doing.

IMO they have a lot of momentum to get out ahead of this. BTW: I'm an ardent fiscal conservative and am more from the Goldwater wing of the old Republican party of which H.W. and W. were anathema. Socially I'm a little more libertarian within reason. I do firmly believe that Americans need to relearn active listening and the art of compromise with the exception of loyalty. That's where I tend to be if you aren't for us, you are against us in my thinking, all while embracing that we can differ on everything as long as our aim is what is best for the U.S..

Where you might find me to be a bit more progressive is in a T.R. understanding of anti-trust which IMO has been killing the middle class and with it the work ethic and the loyalty to each other.

(05-19-2020 10:32 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 06:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 06:38 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 02:03 AM)chester Wrote:  JR, I 100% agree with you. Absolutely! Problem is, the SEC and the rest of the Ps don't agree with us. We Ps have all long been the prime perpetrators of this crime against valuable athletes, for we attract the most valuable among them but still subjugate them to fake "amateurism". To formally withdraw from the Cartel is admit that there is some distinction between ourselves and the rest, which would make it ever more difficult to rob folks under the guise, the lie of "amateurism."

What we really need is for fans of Ps to demand that the athletes be treated properly. I refuse to believe that that the level of pay has anything at all to do with why we support our teams. No, it's because they attend our schools...

Estimates for a breakaway P league, whether that is 2 to 4 conferences playing a self contained schedule is between 110 million per to 120 million. If that doesn't grab the attention of the AD's and Presidents to make this move nothing ever will, especially with what they are facing right now in shortfalls.

They should, for publicity's sake, be thinking of distancing themselves from a NCAA which is going to come out of this as the poster child of the plantation owner. The sooner we get ahead of this the better off we are.

I'm assuming that the upper tier would consist of between 48 to 56 schools after a few privates bow out of football, concentrate on basketball, and maybe a couple of G5's try to make the jump in investment level.

The natural winnowing of programs who won't or can't compete in a system that compensates and insures players will permit us to define whose in by voluntary association and established minimums will take care of the pretenders.

Then we need to get about ensuring that rivals are kept, regional scheduling for fans observed as much as is practical, and 1 or 2 OOC games of interest are played a year.

The structure needs to take care of the playoff participants based on seasonal long on field performance.

Build a winner of a system and it will stay a winner.

JR, here again I agree, but here again I thinlk that the SEC and the rest disagree with you and I. We, the P5 ARE the plantation owners. We conrol it all. We've shown zero willingness to treat the athletes fairly and have shown zero willingness to depart from the rest even if it means more money in the bank.

We area the sinners. We are the asshats controlling the whole charade. Things won't change until such time as we the fans or the courts or Congress force change. It's that simple. Meantime, we suuuck. We ALL suck.

Chester, I got it the first time. I'm doing what I can to send a Sicilian message. Oddly enough I have readers. We are most definitely guilty, but what I'm saying is here's our chance to hang it on the NCAA and get out a helluva lot cleaner than we will ever be able to in the future if we wait. They need to hear this. And I agree that fans everywhere need to write their president and their AD's. Culturally we are on a precipice and we can either look like leaders, or get pushed off into the ravine. I simply favor the former as you do.

What they don't realize are the enormous benefits of setting up such an arrangement. The players are then subject to image standards of the university in ways they've never been able to be held accountable before and we can tell them up front it is all in preparation of what the NFL is going to ask as well. Now instead of being the social underclass on campus they will be part of the face of the program in ways nobody would have ever permitted in the past.

The whole move removes recruiting stigma, makes honest the old payola by boosters, makes the kids honest taxpayers instead of crooked amateurs, and it sets a tone for a kind of discipline that has heretofore not existed. Now if you get drunk or shoplift you are the face of the program and breach will be summarily dealt with and careers over. No more shuffling off quietly to play somewhere else. Image conscious schools won't like taking those who had to be dismissed with cause, as opposed to players rumored to have had difficulties.

Many Olympic sports are losers money-wise. I'll show my cards here and say that I tend toward the conservative side of the political spectrum. That's pertinent because of one thing: Title IX. Schools can't just cut drastically all non-money making sports, because then, in most schools, there would be no "womens sports." Obviously there are exceptions (UConn women's basketball, maybe a few softball programs, etc.)

But, what if college sports truly became separate not just from the NCAA but from the college itself. Colleges no longer offer ANY athletic scholarships.

BUT: College sports still exist, just no longer associated with the school in the same way. Eligibility to play in the college sports leagues is still based on college attendance/full-time enrollment in an undergraduate program, with 4-6 years of eligibility.

In other words, college sports become a professional minor league. The "Tennessee Vols" still have orange and white as their predominant colors (they would have to sign a contract for the rights to those colors with the university), but now they can recruit any player they want, offer any $ they want. And players can sign contracts for any length they want with opt-out clauses built in.

So if I am high school senior and decide I want to play for the football team Tennessee Vols, then I sign a contract for X amount and agree to play for four years. There is no scholarship, but my salary covers my tuition/room and board, other fees, +.

I have an opt-out in my contract that opens up if the coach changes as well as one that states that I can opt-out if I am not getting at least x % of the possible snaps, etc. Then I could be a free agent and go to another school. When my four years are up, I could stay for a 5th year as I do graduate work, or I could be a free agent and go somewhere else.

It would work for the revenue sports.

The Olympic sports would be separate too, and thus avoid Title IX issues. There is now just, for instance, an NACSC (National Association for College Swimming Competitions). There is a a CGCA (College Gymnastics Competition Association). There is a FCVL (Federal College Volleyball League). Each could have corporate sponsors, and each would make only as much as the free market permitted. On top of those salaries, a private company could simply hire an athlete from one of the Olympic sports as a commercial actor, or pay for their endorsement. In an Olympic year, those commercial prices go up and the athletes make more money.

But the school is not hemorrhaging money for non-viable sports, and does not run afoul of Title IX issues.

I guess what I am talking about is one step removed from a "student-athlete" but the requirement would be that the athletes still be students. You could even put in minimum GPA requirements.

The "top tier" could still give back to universities if they wanted, but there would be no necessary formal relationship.

I hope this idea makes at least some sense.

Man, if I had the dough to do it, I'd offer to buy out, say, 30-50 of the P5 football programs, leasing their facilities and school marks. Easy, easy money, especially if they'd be willing to drop horseshoes, ping pong, and other money losers not needed to satisfy Title IX.

And I'd take a very hard look at buying out all P5 men's basketball programs plus the Big East.

And of course my players would benefit because I would officially employ them and entreat their union. Good times for all except those horseshoers.

(08-04-2020 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:23 PM)chester Wrote:  

IIRC the NCAA has until early October to file its last appeal. Wonder how long they have to ask SCOTUS for a stay??

BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

I see these all as great reasons for the P5 to make that breakaway, monetize basketball fully, and enhance the revenue of baseball and hockey by owing the CWS and the Frozen Four, and setting their own pay limits which is what they want to do. I think this is what the tried to petition Congress for advice in doing.

IMO they have a lot of momentum to get out ahead of this. BTW: I'm an ardent fiscal conservative and am more from the Goldwater wing of the old Republican party of which H.W. and W. were anathema. Socially I'm a little more libertarian within reason. I do firmly believe that Americans need to relearn active listening and the art of compromise with the exception of loyalty. That's where I tend to be if you aren't for us, you are against us in my thinking, all while embracing that we can differ on everything as long as our aim is what is best for the U.S..

Where you might find me to be a bit more progressive is in a T.R. understanding of anti-trust which IMO has been killing the middle class and with it the work ethic and the loyalty to each other.

I too would describe myself as being fiscally conservative and largely libertarian on other issues.

I don't believe, though, that the P5 are interested in providing any more pay to any athletes than they already do. It's easy to forget (and I've done it myself) but this case does not involve the whole of the NCAA. It applies to 1A football and D1 basketball. All P5 conferences are named defendants and they are all still fighting this case despite the fact that they're being allowed to continue limiting non-education related compensation to the plaintiff class. The P5's request of Congress does not significantly differ from the rest of the NCAA's. They all wan't the same thing: the ability to legally price-fix and the ability to restrict NIL as they see fit.

I'm not well-read on the subject but it seems to me that antitrust in relation to price-fixing is pretty simple. (Should be anyway.) A group with monopoly power can't control the selling price of a commodity or service. A group with monopsony power, like the NCAA's D1 schools, can't control the buying price of a commodity or service, like the price for the services offered by athletes.

(08-04-2020 11:33 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:23 PM)chester Wrote:  

IIRC the NCAA has until early October to file its last appeal. Wonder how long they have to ask SCOTUS for a stay??

BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

I see these all as great reasons for the P5 to make that breakaway, monetize basketball fully, and enhance the revenue of baseball and hockey by owing the CWS and the Frozen Four, and setting their own pay limits which is what they want to do. I think this is what the tried to petition Congress for advice in doing.

IMO they have a lot of momentum to get out ahead of this. BTW: I'm an ardent fiscal conservative and am more from the Goldwater wing of the old Republican party of which H.W. and W. were anathema. Socially I'm a little more libertarian within reason. I do firmly believe that Americans need to relearn active listening and the art of compromise with the exception of loyalty. That's where I tend to be if you aren't for us, you are against us in my thinking, all while embracing that we can differ on everything as long as our aim is what is best for the U.S..

Where you might find me to be a bit more progressive is in a T.R. understanding of anti-trust which IMO has been killing the middle class and with it the work ethic and the loyalty to each other.

I too would describe myself as being fiscally conservative and largely libertarian on other issues.

I don't believe, though, that the P5 are interested in providing any more pay to any athletes than they already do. It's easy to forget (and I've done it myself) but this case does not involve the whole of the NCAA. It applies to 1A football and D1 basketball. All P5 conferences are named defendants and they are all still fighting this case. The P5's request of Congress does not significantly differ from the rest of the NCAA's. They all wan't the same thing: the ability to legally price-fix and the ability to restrict NIL as they see fit.

I'm not well-read on the subject but it seems to me that antitrust in relation to price-fixing is pretty simple. (Should be anyway.) A group with monopoly power can't control the selling price of a commodity or service. A group with monopsony power, like the NCAA's D1 schools, can't control the buying price of a commodity or service, like the price for the services offered by athletes.

And they don't have to. The cap would be set for exactly what the court ruled, non cash benefits. Those would be capped. The players would have their likeness and image money, and the stipends from school to school could vary enough but remain within unpublished parameters so as to prevent a substantial price war.

Then the schools could argue that the better players earn more based on their image and likeness due to ability, performance, and maintaining their public image.

It won't be called a monopoly. The monopoly of earnings won't rob the athletes, but rather come from the collective bargaining of the schools for their rights, or better yet the production and distribution of their own product sans the networks. All it would take is their own play by play guys and gals who are better and more enjoyable for their respective fan bases, their own production facilities which thanks to conference networks they virtually all have, and satellite space, or owning a couple of satellites, which thanks to Space X is now quite doable.

The marketing angle is to sell access to all P5 sports per sport per season for the cost of 1 season ticket spread across the 3 to 5 months of that season.

Do the math and you will see that by having not only the subscriptions but all of the advertising money too that each school might well see 90 to 130 million depending upon their subscriptions and the purchased individual streams, and that's per year.

Right now we let ESPN deduct all of their high salaries and talking heads before they split the subscription profit with us and they pocket the ad revenue. And for that those bastards can't even pay us 100 million per school in what is nearly a 7 billion dollar industry for just subscriptions and paid streams. Double that with add revenue. Triple it if you cut the number of schools down to about 40.

(08-04-2020 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 11:33 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:23 PM)chester Wrote:  

IIRC the NCAA has until early October to file its last appeal. Wonder how long they have to ask SCOTUS for a stay??

BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

I see these all as great reasons for the P5 to make that breakaway, monetize basketball fully, and enhance the revenue of baseball and hockey by owing the CWS and the Frozen Four, and setting their own pay limits which is what they want to do. I think this is what the tried to petition Congress for advice in doing.

IMO they have a lot of momentum to get out ahead of this. BTW: I'm an ardent fiscal conservative and am more from the Goldwater wing of the old Republican party of which H.W. and W. were anathema. Socially I'm a little more libertarian within reason. I do firmly believe that Americans need to relearn active listening and the art of compromise with the exception of loyalty. That's where I tend to be if you aren't for us, you are against us in my thinking, all while embracing that we can differ on everything as long as our aim is what is best for the U.S..

Where you might find me to be a bit more progressive is in a T.R. understanding of anti-trust which IMO has been killing the middle class and with it the work ethic and the loyalty to each other.

I too would describe myself as being fiscally conservative and largely libertarian on other issues.

I don't believe, though, that the P5 are interested in providing any more pay to any athletes than they already do. It's easy to forget (and I've done it myself) but this case does not involve the whole of the NCAA. It applies to 1A football and D1 basketball. All P5 conferences are named defendants and they are all still fighting this case. The P5's request of Congress does not significantly differ from the rest of the NCAA's. They all wan't the same thing: the ability to legally price-fix and the ability to restrict NIL as they see fit.

I'm not well-read on the subject but it seems to me that antitrust in relation to price-fixing is pretty simple. (Should be anyway.) A group with monopoly power can't control the selling price of a commodity or service. A group with monopsony power, like the NCAA's D1 schools, can't control the buying price of a commodity or service, like the price for the services offered by athletes.

And they don't have to. The cap would be set for exactly what the court ruled, non cash benefits. Those would be capped. The players would have their likeness and image money, and the stipends from school to school could vary enough but remain within unpublished parameters so as to prevent a substantial price war.

Then the schools could argue that the better players earn more based on their image and likeness due to ability, performance, and maintaining their public image.

It won't be called a monopoly. The monopoly of earnings won't rob the athletes, but rather come from the collective bargaining of the schools for their rights, or better yet the production and distribution of their own product sans the networks. All it would take is their own play by play guys and gals who are better and more enjoyable for their respective fan bases, their own production facilities which thanks to conference networks they virtually all have, and satellite space, or owning a couple of satellites, which thanks to Space X is now quite doable.

The marketing angle is to sell access to all P5 sports per sport per season for the cost of 1 season ticket spread across the 3 to 5 months of that season.

Do the math and you will see that by having not only the subscriptions but all of the advertising money too that each school might well see 90 to 130 million depending upon their subscriptions and the purchased individual streams, and that's per year.

Right now we let ESPN deduct all of their high salaries and talking heads before they split the subscription profit with us and they pocket the ad revenue. And for that those bastards can't even pay us 100 million per school in what is nearly a 7 billion dollar industry for just subscriptions and paid streams. Double that with add revenue. Triple it if you cut the number of schools down to about 40.

True, if Washington were to declare that athletes have full ownership of their own NIL, including the broadcast of their images on TV, players would end up with a significant portion of TV revenue. (Not the case now due to the O'Bannon ruling.)

But again, the P5 conferences are adamantly opposed to that and most people in D.C. are not going to be interested enough to deeply delve into such things. That disinterest can benefit the P5 because it means non-scrutiny. You'd need newsworthy things like player boycotts and more player boycotts to swing things from what P5 schools lobby for to what players prefer.

(08-05-2020 12:29 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 11:33 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2020 06:23 PM)chester Wrote:  

IIRC the NCAA has until early October to file its last appeal. Wonder how long they have to ask SCOTUS for a stay??

BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

I see these all as great reasons for the P5 to make that breakaway, monetize basketball fully, and enhance the revenue of baseball and hockey by owing the CWS and the Frozen Four, and setting their own pay limits which is what they want to do. I think this is what the tried to petition Congress for advice in doing.

IMO they have a lot of momentum to get out ahead of this. BTW: I'm an ardent fiscal conservative and am more from the Goldwater wing of the old Republican party of which H.W. and W. were anathema. Socially I'm a little more libertarian within reason. I do firmly believe that Americans need to relearn active listening and the art of compromise with the exception of loyalty. That's where I tend to be if you aren't for us, you are against us in my thinking, all while embracing that we can differ on everything as long as our aim is what is best for the U.S..

Where you might find me to be a bit more progressive is in a T.R. understanding of anti-trust which IMO has been killing the middle class and with it the work ethic and the loyalty to each other.

I too would describe myself as being fiscally conservative and largely libertarian on other issues.

I don't believe, though, that the P5 are interested in providing any more pay to any athletes than they already do. It's easy to forget (and I've done it myself) but this case does not involve the whole of the NCAA. It applies to 1A football and D1 basketball. All P5 conferences are named defendants and they are all still fighting this case. The P5's request of Congress does not significantly differ from the rest of the NCAA's. They all wan't the same thing: the ability to legally price-fix and the ability to restrict NIL as they see fit.

I'm not well-read on the subject but it seems to me that antitrust in relation to price-fixing is pretty simple. (Should be anyway.) A group with monopoly power can't control the selling price of a commodity or service. A group with monopsony power, like the NCAA's D1 schools, can't control the buying price of a commodity or service, like the price for the services offered by athletes.

And they don't have to. The cap would be set for exactly what the court ruled, non cash benefits. Those would be capped. The players would have their likeness and image money, and the stipends from school to school could vary enough but remain within unpublished parameters so as to prevent a substantial price war.

Then the schools could argue that the better players earn more based on their image and likeness due to ability, performance, and maintaining their public image.

It won't be called a monopoly. The monopoly of earnings won't rob the athletes, but rather come from the collective bargaining of the schools for their rights, or better yet the production and distribution of their own product sans the networks. All it would take is their own play by play guys and gals who are better and more enjoyable for their respective fan bases, their own production facilities which thanks to conference networks they virtually all have, and satellite space, or owning a couple of satellites, which thanks to Space X is now quite doable.

The marketing angle is to sell access to all P5 sports per sport per season for the cost of 1 season ticket spread across the 3 to 5 months of that season.

Do the math and you will see that by having not only the subscriptions but all of the advertising money too that each school might well see 90 to 130 million depending upon their subscriptions and the purchased individual streams, and that's per year.

Right now we let ESPN deduct all of their high salaries and talking heads before they split the subscription profit with us and they pocket the ad revenue. And for that those bastards can't even pay us 100 million per school in what is nearly a 7 billion dollar industry for just subscriptions and paid streams. Double that with add revenue. Triple it if you cut the number of schools down to about 40.

True, if Washington were to declare that athletes have full ownership of their own NIL, including the broadcast of their images on TV, players would end up with a significant portion of TV revenue. (Not the case now due to the O'Bannon ruling.)

But again, the P5 conferences are adamantly opposed to that and most people in D.C. are not going to be interested enough to deeply delve into such things. That disinterest can benefit the P5 because it means non-scrutiny. You'd need newsworthy things like player boycotts and more player boycotts to swing things from what P5 schools lobby for to what players prefer.

And every time the University's name is mention or jersey is shown they get a cut. This things works both ways.

What will happen with endless player boycotts is that most universities and their donors will get tired of the antics and they'll simply let the schools return to true scholarship only participation, accept the downscaling, and let the NFL handle its own developmental league. What the players have to realize is that there is a sweet spot where both win. It can't be a war to see who can dictate terms. Acrimony will only sour the audience and without the audience neither the school, nor the players win. And it's not a 50/50 proposition as those on the West coast seem to think. For the money spent on every player the schools come a cropper on many of them. This is why the way to go is image, likeness and name. The physical investment in each is the same and those who produce tremendously are only a small % of the total. So the school's overhead will be a higher % of the total overhead and the players with star power a smaller % of that. So a 50/50 split is not equitable. There is going to have to be some business education and open accounting so both parties can see and realize the truth.

(08-05-2020 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And every time the University's name is mention or jersey is shown they get a cut. This things works both ways.

What will happen with endless player boycotts is that most universities and their donors will get tired of the antics and they'll simply let the schools return to true scholarship only participation, accept the downscaling, and let the NFL handle its own developmental league. What the players have to realize is that there is a sweet spot where both win. It can't be a war to see who can dictate terms. Acrimony will only sour the audience and without the audience neither the school, nor the players win. And it's not a 50/50 proposition as those on the West coast seem to think. For the money spent on every player the schools come a cropper on many of them. This is why the way to go is image, likeness and name. The physical investment in each is the same and those who produce tremendously are only a small % of the total. So the school's overhead will be a higher % of the total overhead and the players with star power a smaller % of that. So a 50/50 split is not equitable. There is going to have to be some business education and open accounting so both parties can see and realize the truth.

Let me rephrase. I don't mean endless boycotts, I mean a spread of the potential Pac boycott of this season to other conferences.

Ramogi Huma has become the go-to player advocate on Capitiol Hill this year, appearing before the Senate commerce and judiciary committees. He's played a part in organizing those Pac players. The man is smart and I expect he knows that a) there probably won't be a season this year anyway and b) there's no chance that the Pac will agree to share with its football players anything more than it does now. That would violate NCAA rules.

The purpose of the potential Pac boycott is to help keep players safe and to draw further attention to the economic injustice done to them. The more aware people become, the less likely it is that Congress will pass an NCAA-friendly bill.

Check out the legislative proposal the Cartel recently sent to Congress:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...5810168832

If you're a player it's horrible. Absolutely terrible. It would erase Alston and much more. And the Cartel has all the lobbying money.

Without an advocate in Congress, the players are could be doomed. Like I said, most lawmakers are uninformed or don't care, so they'll hear the Cartel say "Can't have 50 different laws in 50 states" (which is bologna) and possibly pass an NCAA-friendly bill after the coming election.

The Pac 12 boycott is smart. Instead of the one, NCAA-reindly extreme, you have news of opposite extremes.

I hope the threat of a strike spreads to the rest of the P5.

(08-05-2020 01:48 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And every time the University's name is mention or jersey is shown they get a cut. This things works both ways.

What will happen with endless player boycotts is that most universities and their donors will get tired of the antics and they'll simply let the schools return to true scholarship only participation, accept the downscaling, and let the NFL handle its own developmental league. What the players have to realize is that there is a sweet spot where both win. It can't be a war to see who can dictate terms. Acrimony will only sour the audience and without the audience neither the school, nor the players win. And it's not a 50/50 proposition as those on the West coast seem to think. For the money spent on every player the schools come a cropper on many of them. This is why the way to go is image, likeness and name. The physical investment in each is the same and those who produce tremendously are only a small % of the total. So the school's overhead will be a higher % of the total overhead and the players with star power a smaller % of that. So a 50/50 split is not equitable. There is going to have to be some business education and open accounting so both parties can see and realize the truth.

Let me rephrase. I don't mean endless boycotts, I mean a spread of the potential Pac boycott of this season to other conferences.

Ramogi Huma has become the go-to player advocate on Capitiol Hill this year, appearing before the Senate commerce and judiciary committees. He's played a part in organizing those Pac players. The man is smart and I expect he knows that a) there probably won't be a season this year anyway and b) there's no chance that the Pac will agree to share with its football players anything more than it does now. That would violate NCAA rules.

The purpose of the potential Pac boycott is to help keep players safe and to draw further attention to the economic injustice done to them. The more aware people become, the less likely it is that Congress will pass an NCAA-friendly bill.

Check out the legislative proposal the Cartel recently sent to Congress:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...5810168832

If you're a player it's horrible. Absolutely terrible. It would erase Alston and much more. And the Cartel has all the lobbying money.

Without an advocate in Congress, the players are could be doomed. Like I said, most lawmakers are uninformed or don't care, so they'll hear the Cartel say "Can't have 50 different laws in 50 states" (which is bologna) and possibly pass an NCAA-friendly bill after the coming election.

The Pac 12 boycott is smart. Instead of the one, NCAA-reindly extreme, you have news of opposite extremes.

I hope the threat of a strike spreads to the rest of the P5.

The threat of a boycott is no different from the petitions submitted by the NCAA or the P5, which have not tacitly met the qualifications of a "cartel" so I find that to be a loaded term. All three of these positions are starting points for negotiation and none of them represent what is genuinely expected to be a final resolution. So to proclaim the NCAA / P5 positions as somehow extreme but to acknowledge that the players in the PAC need an extreme position is either duplicitous, naive of the expected political process, or an attempt at spin. All three are extreme positions and that is how negotiation begins.

I do not wish for the player's of the PAC's positions to spread. They have served their purpose and have done so in a region receptive to their position. Had the inception of this started in the Big 10 or SEC the response of the audience would have been far more negative to the game overall. If it spreads what you lose is audience. If it represents the players position before Congress it will be a reasonable position from which to begin negotiations.

The nuance here amounts to this. Let Congress implement the change and the people will adapt without blaming the players, or the conferences. I don't personally care what they feel about the NCAA. But if the blame falls on the players or the Conferences the support of the sport overall will be eroded, and the association with BLM rightly or wrongly will be an exacerbating factor. To be giddy over that likelihood is counterproductive to an acceptable and non destructive outcome.

Boomers have driven the popularity of both NCAA sports and Professional sports. The damage to the NFL and NBA is already palpable. COVID is merely a cover for the anger over what has happened there. I do not wish to see that visited upon the conferences, players, or schools.

The sport is going to wane as it is when Boomer's pass because the audience won't be there to drive the advertising and the purchasing power that advertisers pay for. Diminished ad money means diminished funding for the schools and players, and pushing the organizing of the players at this time will only kill it quicker. Reaching a reasonable compromise, laying the blame on Congress or the praise on Congress, doesn't set up an adversarial relationship between players and the schools and that helps the game to survive.

If the PAC player's position is the ultimate winner we will have a prime example of how fools killed the goose that laid the golden egg instead of how to share the valuable eggs.

(08-05-2020 10:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:48 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And every time the University's name is mention or jersey is shown they get a cut. This things works both ways.

What will happen with endless player boycotts is that most universities and their donors will get tired of the antics and they'll simply let the schools return to true scholarship only participation, accept the downscaling, and let the NFL handle its own developmental league. What the players have to realize is that there is a sweet spot where both win. It can't be a war to see who can dictate terms. Acrimony will only sour the audience and without the audience neither the school, nor the players win. And it's not a 50/50 proposition as those on the West coast seem to think. For the money spent on every player the schools come a cropper on many of them. This is why the way to go is image, likeness and name. The physical investment in each is the same and those who produce tremendously are only a small % of the total. So the school's overhead will be a higher % of the total overhead and the players with star power a smaller % of that. So a 50/50 split is not equitable. There is going to have to be some business education and open accounting so both parties can see and realize the truth.

Let me rephrase. I don't mean endless boycotts, I mean a spread of the potential Pac boycott of this season to other conferences.

Ramogi Huma has become the go-to player advocate on Capitiol Hill this year, appearing before the Senate commerce and judiciary committees. He's played a part in organizing those Pac players. The man is smart and I expect he knows that a) there probably won't be a season this year anyway and b) there's no chance that the Pac will agree to share with its football players anything more than it does now. That would violate NCAA rules.

The purpose of the potential Pac boycott is to help keep players safe and to draw further attention to the economic injustice done to them. The more aware people become, the less likely it is that Congress will pass an NCAA-friendly bill.

Check out the legislative proposal the Cartel recently sent to Congress:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...5810168832

If you're a player it's horrible. Absolutely terrible. It would erase Alston and much more. And the Cartel has all the lobbying money.

Without an advocate in Congress, the players are could be doomed. Like I said, most lawmakers are uninformed or don't care, so they'll hear the Cartel say "Can't have 50 different laws in 50 states" (which is bologna) and possibly pass an NCAA-friendly bill after the coming election.

The Pac 12 boycott is smart. Instead of the one, NCAA-reindly extreme, you have news of opposite extremes.

I hope the threat of a strike spreads to the rest of the P5.

The threat of a boycott is no different from the petitions submitted by the NCAA or the P5, which have not tacitly met the qualifications of a "cartel" so I find that to be a loaded term. All three of these positions are starting points for negotiation and none of them represent what is genuinely expected to be a final resolution. So to proclaim the NCAA / P5 positions as somehow extreme but to acknowledge that the players in the PAC need an extreme position is either duplicitous, naive of the expected political process, or an attempt at spin. All three are extreme positions and that is how negotiation begins.

I do not wish for the player's of the PAC's positions to spread. They have served their purpose and have done so in a region receptive to their position. Had the inception of this started in the Big 10 or SEC the response of the audience would have been far more negative to the game overall. If it spreads what you lose is audience. If it represents the players position before Congress it will be a reasonable position from which to begin negotiations.

The nuance here amounts to this. Let Congress implement the change and the people will adapt without blaming the players, or the conferences. I don't personally care what they feel about the NCAA. But if the blame falls on the players or the Conferences the support of the sport overall will be eroded, and the association with BLM rightly or wrongly will be an exacerbating factor. To be giddy over that likelihood is counterproductive to an acceptable and non destructive outcome.

Boomers have driven the popularity of both NCAA sports and Professional sports. The damage to the NFL and NBA is already palpable. COVID is merely a cover for the anger over what has happened there. I do not wish to see that visited upon the conferences, players, or schools.

The sport is going to wane as it is when Boomer's pass because the audience won't be there to drive the advertising and the purchasing power that advertisers pay for. Diminished ad money means diminished funding for the schools and players, and pushing the organizing of the players at this time will only kill it quicker. Reaching a reasonable compromise, laying the blame on Congress or the praise on Congress, doesn't set up an adversarial relationship between players and the schools and that helps the game to survive.

If the PAC player's position is the ultimate winner we will have a prime example of how fools killed the goose that laid the golden egg instead of how to share the valuable eggs.

My expectation is a compromise along the lines of: you get health insurance and protections, you get image and likeness rights and there can be limits on that, you get full cost of attendance, and you get more flexibility to switch schools, etc. but no % of the revenue.

In return, coaches can revoke scholarships more easily. Athletes become more "at-will" than under normal circumstances.

With great power comes great responsibility.

(08-06-2020 01:00 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:48 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And every time the University's name is mention or jersey is shown they get a cut. This things works both ways.

What will happen with endless player boycotts is that most universities and their donors will get tired of the antics and they'll simply let the schools return to true scholarship only participation, accept the downscaling, and let the NFL handle its own developmental league. What the players have to realize is that there is a sweet spot where both win. It can't be a war to see who can dictate terms. Acrimony will only sour the audience and without the audience neither the school, nor the players win. And it's not a 50/50 proposition as those on the West coast seem to think. For the money spent on every player the schools come a cropper on many of them. This is why the way to go is image, likeness and name. The physical investment in each is the same and those who produce tremendously are only a small % of the total. So the school's overhead will be a higher % of the total overhead and the players with star power a smaller % of that. So a 50/50 split is not equitable. There is going to have to be some business education and open accounting so both parties can see and realize the truth.

Let me rephrase. I don't mean endless boycotts, I mean a spread of the potential Pac boycott of this season to other conferences.

Ramogi Huma has become the go-to player advocate on Capitiol Hill this year, appearing before the Senate commerce and judiciary committees. He's played a part in organizing those Pac players. The man is smart and I expect he knows that a) there probably won't be a season this year anyway and b) there's no chance that the Pac will agree to share with its football players anything more than it does now. That would violate NCAA rules.

The purpose of the potential Pac boycott is to help keep players safe and to draw further attention to the economic injustice done to them. The more aware people become, the less likely it is that Congress will pass an NCAA-friendly bill.

Check out the legislative proposal the Cartel recently sent to Congress:

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...5810168832

If you're a player it's horrible. Absolutely terrible. It would erase Alston and much more. And the Cartel has all the lobbying money.

Without an advocate in Congress, the players are could be doomed. Like I said, most lawmakers are uninformed or don't care, so they'll hear the Cartel say "Can't have 50 different laws in 50 states" (which is bologna) and possibly pass an NCAA-friendly bill after the coming election.

The Pac 12 boycott is smart. Instead of the one, NCAA-reindly extreme, you have news of opposite extremes.

I hope the threat of a strike spreads to the rest of the P5.

The threat of a boycott is no different from the petitions submitted by the NCAA or the P5, which have not tacitly met the qualifications of a "cartel" so I find that to be a loaded term. All three of these positions are starting points for negotiation and none of them represent what is genuinely expected to be a final resolution. So to proclaim the NCAA / P5 positions as somehow extreme but to acknowledge that the players in the PAC need an extreme position is either duplicitous, naive of the expected political process, or an attempt at spin. All three are extreme positions and that is how negotiation begins.

I do not wish for the player's of the PAC's positions to spread. They have served their purpose and have done so in a region receptive to their position. Had the inception of this started in the Big 10 or SEC the response of the audience would have been far more negative to the game overall. If it spreads what you lose is audience. If it represents the players position before Congress it will be a reasonable position from which to begin negotiations.

The nuance here amounts to this. Let Congress implement the change and the people will adapt without blaming the players, or the conferences. I don't personally care what they feel about the NCAA. But if the blame falls on the players or the Conferences the support of the sport overall will be eroded, and the association with BLM rightly or wrongly will be an exacerbating factor. To be giddy over that likelihood is counterproductive to an acceptable and non destructive outcome.

Boomers have driven the popularity of both NCAA sports and Professional sports. The damage to the NFL and NBA is already palpable. COVID is merely a cover for the anger over what has happened there. I do not wish to see that visited upon the conferences, players, or schools.

The sport is going to wane as it is when Boomer's pass because the audience won't be there to drive the advertising and the purchasing power that advertisers pay for. Diminished ad money means diminished funding for the schools and players, and pushing the organizing of the players at this time will only kill it quicker. Reaching a reasonable compromise, laying the blame on Congress or the praise on Congress, doesn't set up an adversarial relationship between players and the schools and that helps the game to survive.

If the PAC player's position is the ultimate winner we will have a prime example of how fools killed the goose that laid the golden egg instead of how to share the valuable eggs.

My expectation is a compromise along the lines of: you get health insurance and protections, you get image and likeness rights and there can be limits on that, you get full cost of attendance, and you get more flexibility to switch schools, etc. but no % of the revenue.

In return, coaches can revoke scholarships more easily. Athletes become more "at-will" than under normal circumstances.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I think athletes in season should be allowed to take a minimum of 2 courses of their choice. During the rest of the year they should have to maintain a minimum full load. But where they get a perk is that they may complete their education at any time, including after their professional careers.

Quote:BTW, while Feldman is right that the NCAA would not be able limit non-cash education-related benefits, they would also not be able to limit cash academic awards below the total value of permissible non-education-related participation and championship awards. I forget the exact figure, but that's currently somewhere between $5,000 & $6,500 per year.

Correction, I'd mistakenly thought Judge Wilken only considered the total value of the maximum number of participation and championship awards an athlete might receive in a given year when establishing a minimum figure at which the NCAA may cap annual academic awards to the plaintiff class. (She took that total to be $5,620 at the time of her ruling.) But that's not the case. She also ruled that the total value of the individual achievement awards (IAAs) an athlete in the plaintiff class might receive in a single season is to be included in the minimum total at which the NCAA may cap such athletes' academic awards.

Daniel A Rascher had provided Wilken an assessment of the annual value of the injunctive relief she granted the plaintiff class. In it, and using a hypothetical QB as an example, Rascher estimated the total value of the IAAs that QB might receive in a year to be $9,795, putting the grand total of athletic awards she considered in establishing a permissible NCAA cap at around $15,415. (An exact figure isn't possible because the NCAA places no limit on the value of a trophy recognizing an established national award and, regarding one or two other IAAs that have a limited value each, no limit on the number of them that said QB could receive.)

So something like $15,500 today. The ruling would require that if the NCAA does impose a cap on academic awards, that cap may never fall below the total value of annual athletic awards this or that athlete could have gotten at the time of the ruling and that, otherwise, it may never dip below the value of those athletic awards.

Anyway, this is one of the things about the ruling that most bother the defendants. Their lawyers argue that schools could dole out such cash (or in-kind) awards in an amount equal or less than the cap to athletes who simply maintain academic eligibility – the equivalent of what the NCAA would call pay-for-play.

/pedantry

The conferences want a decision on writ of cert. sped along if a stay isn't granted by the deadline of Aug 11th because they are each afraid that the others might start taking advantage before the end result of this case, causing "immediate, lasting damage to intercollegiate athletics and the millions of people who participate in or enjoy them."



Seriously, though, let's get real. The notion that only millions will suffer lasting damage from this is a bit optimistic isn't it? In reality it's gotta be

...Been on the line with loved ones all night – college sports fans, all. It's bad, guys, real bad. They simply can NOT abide the possibility of college athletes having access to greater academic opportunities. They say it damages them...

Trying to talk them off the ledge now.