Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
'A nightmare for college athletics'
Author Message
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,221
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 85
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #161
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance.

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

I mean, the schools could go back to the old NCAA-dominant regime any time they want to. None want to.

The money is too dam good..
02-22-2020 04:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,661
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #162
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-21-2020 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly--nobody ever touched on any of unintended ramifications of eliminating all caps on college athletics. That said---is it really that hard to see a fairly decent number of schools, unable to compete---dropping down---vastly cutting back on sports or dropping them altogether in a free agent environment? One need not envision a virtual Armageddon end of all college athletics to see a serious reduction in athletic scholarship opportunities could occur if free agency was instituted.

Maybe it's just that others either (a) don't share your speculations on the ramifications of free agency, or (b) don't think the rights of student X should be suppressed in order to benefit student Y?

Concerning (a), think about it: First, there is good reason to think few schools would drop down or abandon athletics. It might happen, yes, but it is by no means certain or close to it. Why? Because schools have, sadly IMO, proven remarkably resilient in clinging to football specifically and athletics generally that *already* is an uncompetitive financial disaster. Just look at all the FBS schools that run athletic programs, and football in particular, where operating revenues are only about 30% to 50% of operating costs, such that they soak their students or the academic side for fees and transfers to make it up, and with not only no apology but with bristling defenses about the "value of athletics"? Is having to pay players really going to push them over the edge? Not likely, especially when the cost of the typical player is unlikely to be more, and may well be less, than the current value of a scholarship.

Also, I think it just as likely that free agency will help the "have nots" as it will hurt them. As IIRC Tank once said, under the current football regime, his Illinois has to compete with Michigan and Ohio State for players on essentially one basis - the status and prestige of the program. And that's as impossible a game for Illinois to win as it is for USF or UCF to compete for 160 IQ kids with Harvard and Yale. But, allow Illinois to compete using money to pay players, and that could change the calculus significantly. And not just for P5. Schools like USF and Houston and UCF churn out thousands of new alumni every year. All it takes is one of them to become a Bloomberg or Pickens with money to burn and suddenly they might be able to out-bid even some P5 for better players. Or even without a Bill Gates they could pool their resources, collect $100 each from those hundreds of thousands, and create a big fund to buy players.

As for (b) that's a moral question and one I think has to be readily answered in favor of the high-market value students. It is no more right to take away the economic rights of a Joe Burrow just because that might mean 10 soccer players lose their scholarships any more than a new car company running lean with 10,000 employees but an innovative, better product should be shut down by the government because it might mean that 100,000 employees at existing firms lose their jobs because of the competition.

IOW's, the 'ramifications' of free agency are by no means obvious, nor is it clear that those ramifications create problems that government should fix.
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2020 10:28 AM by quo vadis.)
02-22-2020 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,386
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1315
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #163
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I do agree with Attackcoog on payments. If the costs go up, many schools will drop sports. Especially the non-rev sports, that are actually played by serious students. Lots of men's sports got dropped when Title IX came in.

Pay for play means even more distortion of the academic side to help the football and basketball players. Reality is that basketball players do have an alternative. Almost every one of the one and dones thinks being in a college program for a year is more valuable for them than playing pro in a minor league or Europe.

And then we do get strikes and things like that as they are employees and even bigger prima donnas than some are now. That will seriously turn off fans. Baseball used to be my favorite sport to follow, but after the strike that cancelled the World Series, I lost interest.
02-22-2020 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,538
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #164
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-22-2020 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  I do agree with Attackcoog on payments. If the costs go up, many schools will drop sports. Especially the non-rev sports, that are actually played by serious students. Lots of men's sports got dropped when Title IX came in.

Pay for play means even more distortion of the academic side to help the football and basketball players. Reality is that basketball players do have an alternative. Almost every one of the one and dones thinks being in a college program for a year is more valuable for them than playing pro in a minor league or Europe.

And then we do get strikes and things like that as they are employees and even bigger prima donnas than some are now. That will seriously turn off fans. Baseball used to be my favorite sport to follow, but after the strike that cancelled the World Series, I lost interest.

It’s always the unintended consequences. For instance, Title 9 means you’ll need to pay the women on a scale similar to the men. While Quo says schools will just keep on poring more and more money into the program—-I don’t think that’s true, Idaho moved down. UAB nearly shut down. Many men’s programs were shut down in cost savings moves required for Title 9 women’s programs. Multiple schools have culled sports to cut costs. Some states have moved to legislate a cap for student fees (meaning there is no avenue to get more athletics money for some schools). Heck---some schools will shut it down simply because they are adamant about not wanting to deal with student athletes as employees.

Furthermore, is the sport lose legitimacy if Tillman Fertita can simply buy Houston a title. I mean I’d be excited if my team won—but even I would have to admit it wouldn’t mean nearly as much as winning a national title under the current rules. Will people continue to watch if they know a couple of billionaires are deciding who wins like its WWF wrestling? Will fans of teams with no billionaire booster stop watching——preferring to invest themselves in a different sport that is not so predetermined and is more unpredictable?

With respect to Quos concern about Joe Burroughs—-we limit the Joe Burroughs every day. Every pro league has a salary cap of some kind. Yes, a union negotiated those caps—-but they are still caps. Furthermore—-not a single rookie drafted and playing under a rookie scale deal had any input into the NLF or MLB agreements (nor did they get to vote on it).

Assuming free agency hit---in order to make this league work you will need a college union in order to negotiate a cap that can make the sport competitive enough to keep folks interested. The union will need to include all womens sports as well (as Title 9 will probably require the pay to be equal). That means there will be an immediate issue in the union because Joe Burrough is still getting screwed over to pay a womens rower who probably has no actual economic value). With unions your going to get strikes, cancelled games, perhaps even cancelled seasons or championships, holdouts, and contract disputes. So yes, there will be many universities that will want absolutely no part of that and will drop sports.

Just seems to me that this is borderline unconstitutional. How can the government say you cant have a amateur league? It seems a real stretch that anti-trust law written to prevent robber barons from charging the public $70 a gallon for gas---can be used as a club to dismember a money losing amateur league that doesnt cost the public a cent.

Is the argument the free market must be allowed to flourish? In the current "free market" literally millions of high school athletes are aggressively competing for the 50,000 or so FBS athletic scholarship opportunities. Seems to me the "labor" market participants are fine with the compensation. If it wasnt, the schools would have few applicants to choose from. I'd also add that about 20% of each FBS football roster (walk ons) are receiving NO compensation what so ever. They just do it because they enjoy it that much. So---it clearly sounds like a purely enjoyable recreational pursuit requiring no compensation at all for a significant portion of the participants.

Alston is focusing only on a handful of kids that are highly sought after by multiple schools---but are ignoring the fact that the entire membership of the NCAA is more than willing to completely forgo the services of these high value players in favor of alternatives willing to play within the NCAA's defined amateur compensation parameters. Hard for me to understand how the schools can be forced to have a pro league if they dont want one. Since when did the government start making investors invest in money losing ventures? Well---Title 9 was the first---now its possible the Alston case may do the same. It’s clear to me that the NCAA is probably in violation of antitrust law—but I do wonder if the law might be challenged on constitutional basis in this application. It was applied to amateur sports in the 84' Oklahoma Board of Regents case---but you can reasonably argue the public gained access to more games at a cheaper price. How exactly does the public gain from the creation of a free agent pay-for-play pro league that greatly reduces the supply of all college sports (which likely will increase costs to the consumer)?

This one has lots of interesting angles in my opinion.
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2020 05:20 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-22-2020 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #165
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Bumping to say that it looks like the NCAA has a plan to influence as many state bills as they can.

Colorado's bill completed the legislative process today* and is moving on to the Governor. Oregon's bill will follow suit tomorrow and Florida will likely pass one of its bills next week.

The bills in those three states plus the one recently introduced in Kansas all have something in common – something not found in any other bill. They prohibit schools from paying current athletes for the use of their NIL. (And they each in turn have at least one other restriction not found in California's law.) Something else the bills in Colorado, Oregon, Florida and Kansas have in common is that they have all been influenced by local NCAA schools.

To paraphrase Jeff Long, who appeared at a hearing in Topeka today, the idea is to have something in place to keep Kansas' schools competitive in case Congress doesn't act before other states' laws go into effect or in case Congress doesn't act at all, but to do it in a way that would help deter those who advocate for making athletes employees, which he believes would lead to a dramatic reduction in sponsored sports.

I don't think Long is telling the whole tale, though. First, the California law, which neither requires nor outlaws pay for play, allows the NCAA to continue prohibiting each other from paying players if they want to. Also, the oft-repeated "50 different laws in 50 different states" line hasn't been working out for the NCAA. Until recently, most all state bills were essentially the same as the one California passed. The only significant differences between those California-type bills are their effective dates and whether or not they apply to juco.

It doesn't suit the NCAA for all or most all states to closely follow California's lead. The NCAA won't be able to get what they want from Congress if that happens. So they are trying to create laws that differ from California's, laws that are more to their liking. Then they can say to Congress "Look! These states want guardrails." That's my theory, anyway. 05-nono

*Correction: I forgot that Colorado's bill was amended by a House committee last week. It will have to go back to the Senate for concurrence. Anyway, it's going to pass.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2020 04:47 PM by chester.)
03-04-2020 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #166
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Alston v. NCAA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – oral arguments were held on March 9 and can be seen here:

https://youtu.be/n1FcKbgmJ3c
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2020 04:20 PM by chester.)
03-09-2020 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,386
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1315
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #167
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-22-2020 04:36 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is some more analysis on the actual filings. Sounds like he thinks the 9th will rule for the plaintiffs. While I agree with most of what he says---I do disagree that the past claims that the NCAA has made about the sport being hurt by court rulings are false. Its pretty clear that overexposure on TV is eating into attendance.

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

I mean, the schools could go back to the old NCAA-dominant regime any time they want to. None want to.

The money is too dam good..

Basketball there is way too much exposure.

For football, its only the last 10-15 years that ALL the games were on. Lots of years, I couldn't get Texas-OU in the east because it was only shown regionally.
03-09-2020 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,661
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #168
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(03-09-2020 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Basketball there is way too much exposure.

True, there is a dizzying blizzard of Division I hoops on TV, and not just the P5 conferences. But, it's not really too much, because evidently enough people want to see these games to keep them on.
03-09-2020 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,538
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1463
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #169
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Darren Heitner
@DarrenHeitner
BREAKING: Florida House has passed bill allowing college athletes to earn $ from name, image & likeness beginning July 2021. Also passed by Florida Senate.

The bill goes to Florida Governor DeSantis for approval. Effective date earlier than CA by 2 years. Great job
@ChipLaMarca
!
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2020 01:54 AM by Attackcoog.)
03-14-2020 01:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,386
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1315
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #170
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(03-09-2020 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-09-2020 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Basketball there is way too much exposure.

True, there is a dizzying blizzard of Division I hoops on TV, and not just the P5 conferences. But, it's not really too much, because evidently enough people want to see these games to keep them on.

Too much in the sense that it hurts attendance and hurts TV viewing of major games with saturation since there is very little "can't miss" matchups.
03-14-2020 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #171
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(03-14-2020 01:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Darren Heitner
@DarrenHeitner
BREAKING: Florida House has passed bill allowing college athletes to earn $ from name, image & likeness beginning July 2021. Also passed by Florida Senate.

The bill goes to Florida Governor DeSantis for approval. Effective date earlier than CA by 2 years. Great job
@ChipLaMarca
!

Picturing conversations like this after DeSantis signs that bill:

RECRUITER: We'd like you to come to UT. We think you'll be a great fit in Knoxville.

RECRUIT: Well, thanks but I'm thinking FSU. Florida passed a law that keeps schools from letting us make money from our NILs, starting next year.

RECRUITER: Our state is seriously considering doing that too, and one of our bills would kick in this year.

RECRUIT: Really?

RECRUITER: Sure. And did you know that Florida's law lets FSU limit what you can make on deals based on what they think your NIL is worth?

RECRUIT: What???

RECRUITER: Yep. But our bills won't do that. You'd be able to make as much money here as you can.
03-14-2020 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,298
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 678
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #172
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(03-14-2020 09:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-09-2020 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-09-2020 03:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Basketball there is way too much exposure.

True, there is a dizzying blizzard of Division I hoops on TV, and not just the P5 conferences. But, it's not really too much, because evidently enough people want to see these games to keep them on.

Too much in the sense that it hurts attendance and hurts TV viewing of major games with saturation since there is very little "can't miss" matchups.

College football on TV is also saturated, but there are still can't miss matchups because games are more impactful. If two top 10 CFB teams play in November, it's a BFD. If two top 10 CBB teams play in February, it's not, because win or lose, both will be top-4 seeds in the NCAA tournament. And with conference tournaments, even in one-bid leagues they're just playing an entire regular season for seeding in a conference tournament that everyone plays in.
03-14-2020 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #173
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
So a lot of state legislatures are now in temporary recess because of the thaang. Some have already adjourned as scheduled. Here's a snapshot of the NIL scene as it stands.

Green – Is overall less restrictive than California's law
Red – Is overall more restrictive than California's law
Blue – Would require affected schools to pay their athletes (or some of their athletes)
{ } worded to avoid the dormant commerce clause
*Has been passed by the chamber of origin
**Has been sent to the governor
^Not an NIL bill

States with a law

California – Effective date: Jan 1, 2023
Colorado – Jan 1, 2023

States with pending bill(s)

Alabama
HB 82 – Effective date: Jan 1, 2023

Arizona
HB 2143* – Dec 31, 2022

Connecticut
SB 306 – Jul 1, 2023

Florida
• {SB 646}** – Jul 1, 2021

Hawai'i
SB 2673* – Jun 18, 2050 (not a typo)
HB 2655 – Jul 1, 2050 (not a typo)

Illinois
HB 3904*/SB 2278 – Jan 1, 2023
HB 3941^ – Jan 1, 2021 (Trailer. Deals with athlete agents.)

Iowa
HF 2282 – Jan 1, 2022
• {SF 2330} – Jul 1, 2023

Kansas
SB 474* – First Jul 1 following certification by the state AG that 15 other states have enacted a similar law

Kentucky
SB 238/HB 633 – Jul 1, 2023

Louisiana
HB 441/HB 556 – Aug 1, 2020
HB 668 – Aug 1, 2020
SB 239 – Jan 1, 2023

Maryland
HB 533/SB 518 – Jul 1, 2022

Massachusetts
SB 2454 – 90 days after enactment

Michigan
HB 5217 – Jul 1, 2020
Sub for HB 5217 – Dec 31, 2021
SB 660 – 90 days after enactment

Minnesota
HF 3329 – Jan 1, 2023
SF 2995/HF 3908 – Jan 1, 2024

Missouri
• {HC Sub for HB 1564, 1792 & 1748/SB 1063} – Jul 1, 2021

Nebraska
LB 962 – No later than Jul 1, 2023, but earlier if schools want

New Hampshire
HB 1505 – Jul 1, 2022

New Jersey
• {S 971*/A 2106} – In the fifth academic year following the date of enactment
A 2356^ – Immediately (Exempts college athletes' NIL income from state income tax.)

New York
A 8612/S 6761 – Immediately
S 6722/A 8620 – Jan 1, 2023

Oklahoma
HB 3347 – Sep 1, 2020

Pennsylvania
HB 1909/SB 949 – Jul 1, 2020

Rhode Island
H 7806 – Jan 1, 2021

South Carolina
HB 4973 – Immediately
(SB 935) – Jan 1, 2021

Tennessee
• {HB 2649/SB 2804} – Jul 1, 2020
• {SB 1636/HB 1694} – Jul 1, 2023
• {HB 2648/SB 2725}^ – Jul 1, 2020 (Prohibits public schools from penalizing athletes who accept something from a booster or whose family does.)
• {HB 1710/SB 1767}^ – Jul 1, 2020 (Establishes a graduation grant fund for athletes at TN's public D1 schools.)

Vermont
SB 328 – Jan 1, 2023
HB 797 – Jan 1, 2023

Virginia
SB 464 – July 1, 2024 (Didn't pass in 2020 but will carry over to 2021)


2019-20 bills that are no longer valid

Florida HB 251/SB 582, HB 287 & HB 7051 • Georgia HB 743 & HB 766 (GG) • Hawaii HB 1682 • Illinois HB 3898 • Iowa SF 2058 • Massachusetts HD 4559 • Mississippi SB 2356 & HB 880 • Missouri HB 1564, HB 1792 & HB 1748 • New Mexico SB 191 • New York SB 6729 • Oregon SB 1501* • Tennessee HB 1547 • Virginia HB 300 & HB 811 • Washington HB 1084, Sub HB 1084 & SB 5875 • West Virginia HB 4921


Couple of notes: Iowa's bills aren't necessarily more restrictive than California's law. They would allow (but not require) schools to make athletes put their money in a trust fund. I think it's unlikely that any school would require that.

Oregon's failure to pass a bill this year wasn't for lack of support. Their bill was on the verge of passing in early March, but then walkouts over a disputed cap & trade bill brought the session to a premature end.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2020 05:57 AM by chester.)
03-21-2020 02:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #174
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
So I'd like to rant about Colorado's stupid limp-wristed law, which was only just enacted and which came about because its lead sponsor kowtowed to local NCAA schools and to lawyers for multiple Pac-12 schools, but screw it. What's done is done...

Let me now rant about the godawfulness of Connecticut's bill – the latest introduced.

Based in no small part on UConn's suggestions for "model legislation," Connecticut legislators drafted a bill that, among other things, would––
  • deny CT's freshmen athletes the right to get endorsement deals
  • deny CT's freshmen athletes the right to attorneys and agents
  • deny CT's freshmen athletes the right to be employed in any line of work (UConn opposes this since it's allowed by the NCAA. I mean, why strip freshmen of a legal right that the NCAA doesn't oppose? They're not monsters!)
  • deny CT's athletes the right to be employed by their school for participating in athletics
  • allow CT schools and the NCAA to continue denying all CT athletes the right to to be paid for the use of their NIL in ways other than endorsements
  • allow CT schools or the NCAA to cap compensation for endorsement contracts entered into by non-freshmen athletes at their definition of "fair market value"
  • allow CT schools or the NCAA to cap compensation to non-freshmen for any kind of outside employment at their definition of "fair market value"
UConn really taking one for the team here. They're risking the wreckage of their own programs to help the NCAA get Federal help. But they're smart enough to ask for an out in case Congress doesn't act or in case Congress passes something that isn't helpful at all, something that doesn't preempt state laws:

Quote:We would also like to work with the Committee on including appropriate sunset provisions as the legislation progresses. If the NCAA adopts guidelines that are in conflict with Connecticut law, our state’s student athletes would either be ineligible to participate in NCAA competitions or would leave to go to states where NIL rules are more beneficial. In either case, Connecticut collegiate athletic programs would be at a severe disadvantage when recruiting or retaining student athletes.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/HEDdata/Tmy/...nn-TMY.PDF

Thing is, the mere existence of this bill is going to hurt UConn on the recruiting trail. Good. They've asked for it.
03-21-2020 03:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #175
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Compare Connecticut's bill to Missouri's.

Connecticut's is based UConn's (and no doubt other NCAA schools') idea of model legislation.

Missouri's has a lot in common with the NCPA's idea of model legislation.

Connecticut's bill has one and only one allowance: Non-freshmen can get endorsement contracts, provided those contracts don't afford them "too much."

Missouri's has one and only one restriction: Athlete's can't enter into apparel, equipment or beverage contracts that require them to advertise for their sponsor during official team activities if their schools don't want them to. What's more, Missouri's bill would require Missouri schools to stick to the NCAA's 20/8 hr rule for team activities.

Connecticut's bill is an "NCAA bill" and Missouri's is a "Players bill." What's the object here? Is it to fight those who are wronged, or those in the wrong?
03-21-2020 04:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


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