No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

(10-11-2018 05:37 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 04:22 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 09:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 03:05 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Wrong

* The NCAA is the governing body of the employer and prospective employers in this case

The issue is that the NCAA is not appointed by the actual governing bodies of the employers ... the state governments of the schools ... to exercise their authority. The members of the NCAA have self-selected the NCAA to govern them. If the actions of the NCAA restrict competition, that may easily result in the NCAA acting as an illegal cartel.

He can still get a coaching job, but not at an NCAA school from all levels. He could be hired at: NAIA, NCCAA (who are not an NCAA member), USCAA, NJCAA or other community colleges in California, Canadian Colleges, or other smaller independent schools not associated with any organizations.

If he could document those schools tend to pay significantly less, than the NCAA may not be off the hook.

It doesn’t even need to be higher pay. A group collectively deciding not to hire a person (which includes the threat of penalties that would have a chilling effect on that type of hiring) is per se illegal. Each individual school needs to be able to have its own hiring criteria and decisions that may or may not be in line with NCAA rules.

A current high profile example is the Colin Kaepernick case. If each of the 32 NFL teams decided on their own that they didn’t want to sign Kaepernick for whatever reason (whether it was the anthem or a belief that he couldn’t play well any more), then that’s perfectly legal. However, if even a subset of those owners agreed together not to sign him (arguably as few as 2 owners), then that’s illegal collusion.

The NCAA is doing the same thing, except that it’s even more widespread since it’s imposing on hundreds of schools (AKA potential employers). The only thing that surprises me is that we haven’t seen even more antitrust suits against the NCAA on a whole slew of issues. For all of the complaining about the power of the Power 5 conferences, it’s actually the revenue distribution of the NCAA Tournament that is much more likely to get slapped by antitrust laws if ever challenged much more than the CFP/bowl system. The NCAA transfer restrictions could probably be challenged in California in the same manner as the OP’s case and end up getting struck down everywhere. Those are just the examples off the top of my head.

By the way, if you work in a corporate legal department (as I do), the overarching approach to dealing with outlier state laws (which more often than not involves California) is to simply apply that outlier stricter standard everywhere. In effect, California law becomes the national standard because few companies can afford to not do business in California. As a result, California schools aren’t leaving the NCAA as a result of this or any other case. Instead, the NCAA will ultimately have to conform to California law and apply it everywhere.

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

That’s incorrect. This is the largest state in the nation by population with some of the most elite academic schools in college sports. The NCAA is going to have to bend to California law (just like many, many, MANY other industries that are much larger - see the auto industry with California emissions standards and employment laws for companies everywhere) than the other way around.

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

They would be missed far more than any AAC school.

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

(10-11-2018 11:07 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

They would be missed far more than any AAC school.

More than some directional Florida school?

(10-11-2018 05:43 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 11:07 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

They would be missed far more than any AAC school.

More than some directional Florida school?

Definitely

(10-11-2018 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The only thing that surprises me is that we haven’t seen even more antitrust suits against the NCAA on a whole slew of issues.

Maybe it's because the NCAA perhaps isn't actually as vulnerable on this point as many seem to think it is? I mean, over the years I've seen the NCAA described many times as One Giant Anti-Trust Violation, and indeed, when they get taken to federal court, as was the case in the 1980s over the TV deal and later by Jerry Tarkanian, they tend to get wiped out.

And yet, the NCAA is still right here, chugging along as much as ever.

(10-11-2018 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The only thing that surprises me is that we haven’t seen even more antitrust suits against the NCAA on a whole slew of issues.

Maybe it's because the NCAA perhaps isn't actually as vulnerable on this point as many seem to think it is? I mean, over the years I've seen the NCAA described many times as One Giant Anti-Trust Violation, and indeed, when they get taken to federal court, as was the case in the 1980s over the TV deal and later by Jerry Tarkanian, they tend to get wiped out.

And yet, the NCAA is still right here, chugging along as much as ever.

That's cause the NCAA hands out waivers to the member schools when necessary. See Liberty and FBS.

Standing can be a rough thing to obtain and the NCAA is fairly smart about not aggrieiving those with standing and in a position to go to court

(10-11-2018 10:58 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The only thing that surprises me is that we haven’t seen even more antitrust suits against the NCAA on a whole slew of issues.

Maybe it's because the NCAA perhaps isn't actually as vulnerable on this point as many seem to think it is? I mean, over the years I've seen the NCAA described many times as One Giant Anti-Trust Violation, and indeed, when they get taken to federal court, as was the case in the 1980s over the TV deal and later by Jerry Tarkanian, they tend to get wiped out.

And yet, the NCAA is still right here, chugging along as much as ever.

That's cause the NCAA hands out waivers to the member schools when necessary. See Liberty and FBS.

Standing can be a rough thing to obtain and the NCAA is fairly smart about not aggrieiving those with standing and in a position to go to court

Plus waivers were given to Baylor, Miami Florida and UNC, but a non-P5 schools get hit hard for doing the same.

(10-11-2018 11:07 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

They would be missed far more than any AAC school.

Or illiniois who is owned by a directional AAC school. or NAU, whoever the heck that is..

One thing I've never understood is the lack of a license system for coaches like exists in soccer.

The show cause system is bizarre. You break a rule and you don't get sanctioned rather the NCAA declares that it will consider imposing sanctions on anyone who hires you and it is unknown whether sanctions will take place because the potential employer can go before the NCAA and argue they have a better monitoring system and/or plan to give you less unrestricted authority and maybe you don't get sanctioned.

FIFA's license system outlines penalties. Get found responsible for X you get Y punishment. Do A then receive B. There is a reasonable degree of certainty. You can work for a club in a roll that doesn't require a coaching license pretty much without issue.

If you have a show cause who knows if the NCAA will bless you doing film analysis with no contact with players or potential student-athletes?

(10-11-2018 07:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  By the way, if you work in a corporate legal department (as I do), the overarching approach to dealing with outlier state laws (which more often than not involves California) is to simply apply that outlier stricter standard everywhere. In effect, California law becomes the national standard because few companies can afford to not do business in California. As a result, California schools aren’t leaving the NCAA as a result of this or any other case. Instead, the NCAA will ultimately have to conform to California law and apply it everywhere.

Similar to how California more or less sets the standard for auto emissions?

(10-12-2018 07:22 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 11:07 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 07:26 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No one will even miss any Calif schools other than maybe USC.

They would be missed far more than any AAC school.

Or illiniois who is owned by a directional AAC school. or NAU, whoever the heck that is..

It's ok, go hug your mythical NC trophy.

(10-10-2018 09:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 03:05 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 02:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The NCAA is the employer in this case

Wrong

* The NCAA is the governing body of the employer and prospective employers in this case

The issue is that the NCAA is not appointed by the actual governing bodies of the employers ... the state governments of the schools ... to exercise their authority. The members of the NCAA have self-selected the NCAA to govern them. If the actions of the NCAA restrict competition, that may easily result in the NCAA acting as an illegal cartel.

Well state governments couldn't be in charge of regulating NCAA members. Wouldn't that be a violation of interstate commerce?

So if it's a matter of the NCAA lacking authority, the only solution I could see would be for the federal government (in charge of regulating interstate commerce) to nationalize the NCAA. Which IMO would be the definition of overkill.

Then again, maybe a nationalized NCAA would be in favor of paying athletes and promoting parity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(10-12-2018 12:12 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 09:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 03:05 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 02:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The NCAA is the employer in this case

Wrong

* The NCAA is the governing body of the employer and prospective employers in this case

The issue is that the NCAA is not appointed by the actual governing bodies of the employers ... the state governments of the schools ... to exercise their authority. The members of the NCAA have self-selected the NCAA to govern them. If the actions of the NCAA restrict competition, that may easily result in the NCAA acting as an illegal cartel.

Well state governments couldn't be in charge of regulating NCAA members. Wouldn't that be a violation of interstate commerce?

So if it's a matter of the NCAA lacking authority, the only solution I could see would be for the federal government (in charge of regulating interstate commerce) to nationalize the NCAA. Which IMO would be the definition of overkill.

Then again, maybe a nationalized NCAA would be in favor of paying athletes and promoting parity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

State governments absolutely are in charge of regulating NCAA members within their jurisdiction