(07-16-2021 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2021 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC some believe Congress will rescue the NCAA from the courts by amending the antitrust laws, giving it an exemption in exchange for regulation.

Imo this letter indicates the NCAA does not forsee that kind of rescue.

I dont read it that way. I read it as they have no choice right now. They are literally simply following the ruling that was handed down that the NCAA cannot regulate compensation across multiple conferences. The conferences CAN do so per the ruling (though there is no real logic to that and I suspect that will also be challenged by the players and eventually overturned). Thus, anything having to do with compensation will HAVE to be done at the conference level or not at all. So--of course a change in governance must occur. But that will likely have substantial somewhat predictable fall out. That means there could easily be a complete reshuffle of D1 in terms of pay-for-play schools may no longer be in the same D1 division as "scholarship only" schools. It may mean that some schools are in a pay-for-play league for football and basketball----but are in a "scholarship only" leagues for their non-revenue sports. I think the structure of the NCAA may very well change radically from what it is today.

I don't think that what Emmert suggests is really ncessary to comply with the Alston injunction. Just adopt new, compliant rules -- which they did last August when the injunction took effect:
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/propo...?id=105391

Looks to me like they know they will eventually have to give up their remaining "amateurism" rules at the top level.

Back to Alston, there is logic in allowing conferences at the top division to set their own education- related compensation rules, as no single conference is large enough to constitute a monopsony within that space. So long as the conferences do not collude, they're fine. What's more, it's exactly what the player plaintiffs asked for -- though they had wanted the lower courts to broaden the injunction to include non-education related compensation.