Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
'A nightmare for college athletics'
Author Message
Ohio Poly Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,453
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #1
'A nightmare for college athletics'
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.
02-09-2020 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,104
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #2
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2020 12:08 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-09-2020 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,174
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 157
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #3
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Guess they could take the whole sports program to club level.
02-09-2020 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,263
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #4
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.
02-09-2020 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 48,197
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1615
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #5
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.

IIRC, federal legislation is being written now into a proposed bill.
02-09-2020 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,143
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 650
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #6
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Yawn.

More fear mongering from the people who get rich off of a system in which they have complete control over the athletes.
02-09-2020 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Scoochpooch1 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 213
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #7
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yawn.

More fear mongering from the people who get rich off of a system in which they have complete control over the athletes.

Great country when people complain about free a $200,000 education. Athletes have to paid full price for schools then.
02-09-2020 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,881
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #8
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I think its gonna get real crazy sloppy politically and legally and it my never settle down in my life time
02-09-2020 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,263
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #9
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 01:54 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  I think its gonna get real crazy sloppy politically and legally and it my never settle down in my life time

Agree. Its going to be a bit of a mess.

And while football and basketball players will benefit, the real student-athletes in the non-rev sports at the P5 and in all sports at the schools outside the P5 will suffer. The gap between the P5 and the rest will continue to grow.
02-09-2020 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,104
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #10
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.

The reason I think anti-trust legislation makes sense is its the only route that leads to a solution that makes sense. These are academic institutions. Most are losing money on athletics. The primary purpose of these institutions is education. Its already not in the public interest for these institutions to get into bidding wars for coaches. The situation just gets worse when you have bidding wars for players. Additionally---the situation is further complicated by forcing these institutions to maintain women's sports programs that generate no revenue and represent an economic anchor on athletic programs. You cant insist with one hand that an institution operate as a completely free market capitalistic entity----while using the other hand to force the institution to operate as a socialistic operation that exists only to provide free scholarships. Oh---and by the way---make sure the schools educate the kids while they are there (which is suppose to be the primary function of the institution).

An antitrust exemption is the only way to create a model thats actually in the public interest which allows the players to share in the revenue created by the game without causing expenses (that the revenue frankly doesnt support) to explode. It also would allow all those title 9 opportunities to remain in place. Frankly, if any sports entity deserves an anti-trust exemption---it would probably be something like college sports.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2020 06:25 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-09-2020 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,017
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 130
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #11
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 01:42 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yawn.

More fear mongering from the people who get rich off of a system in which they have complete control over the athletes.

Great country when people complain about free a $200,000 education. Athletes have to paid full price for schools then.

Soooo were you an english major?
02-09-2020 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,700
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 499
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #12
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 06:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:42 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yawn.

More fear mongering from the people who get rich off of a system in which they have complete control over the athletes.

Great country when people complain about free a $200,000 education. Athletes have to paid full price for schools then.

Soooo were you an english major?

I think you misspelled "inglish"
02-09-2020 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,263
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #13
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.

The reason I think anti-trust legislation makes sense is its the only route that leads to a solution that makes sense. These are academic institutions. Most are losing money on athletics. The primary purpose of these institutions is education. Its already not in the public interest for these institutions to get into bidding wars for coaches. The situation just gets worse when you have bidding wars for players. Additionally---the situation is further complicated by forcing these institutions to maintain women's sports programs that generate no revenue and represent an economic anchor on athletic programs. You cant insist with one hand that an institution operate as a completely free market capitalistic entity----while using the other hand to force the institution to operate as a socialistic operation that exists only to provide free scholarships. Oh---and by the way---make sure the schools educate the kids while they are there (which is suppose to be the primary function of the institution).

An antitrust exemption is the only way to create a model thats actually in the public interest which allows the players to share in the revenue created by the game without causing expenses (that the revenue frankly doesnt support) to explode. It also would allow all those title 9 opportunities to remain in place. Frankly, if any sports entity deserves an anti-trust exemption---it would probably be something like college sports.

I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.
02-09-2020 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,139
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 79
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #14
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

What a joke. Antitrust exemption in money generating CFB, but what is the difference when the NFL uses it.
02-09-2020 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,104
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #15
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.

The reason I think anti-trust legislation makes sense is its the only route that leads to a solution that makes sense. These are academic institutions. Most are losing money on athletics. The primary purpose of these institutions is education. Its already not in the public interest for these institutions to get into bidding wars for coaches. The situation just gets worse when you have bidding wars for players. Additionally---the situation is further complicated by forcing these institutions to maintain women's sports programs that generate no revenue and represent an economic anchor on athletic programs. You cant insist with one hand that an institution operate as a completely free market capitalistic entity----while using the other hand to force the institution to operate as a socialistic operation that exists only to provide free scholarships. Oh---and by the way---make sure the schools educate the kids while they are there (which is suppose to be the primary function of the institution).

An antitrust exemption is the only way to create a model thats actually in the public interest which allows the players to share in the revenue created by the game without causing expenses (that the revenue frankly doesnt support) to explode. It also would allow all those title 9 opportunities to remain in place. Frankly, if any sports entity deserves an anti-trust exemption---it would probably be something like college sports.

I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.

Its not about sympathy. The NCAA is seen as wrong in the pay for play dispute---but by and large---the NCAA has a pretty positive image among the public. Its college football---smiling athletes---March Madness---traditional football games on Saturdays--athletic sportsmanship---scholarships for hard working athletes and achievers. Nobody is endearing themselves to voters by damaging that or making it go away.

The idea is to figure out how to make it work better for all involved. An anittrust exemption makes the NCAA function exactly how they want it. They want it to provide free athletic scholarship opportunities for women. They want the athletes to share in the revenue. They want the current competitive balance to be relatively unchanged. They want to keep the expense side of the equation under control for public institutions. They want the kids to get an education.

An anti-trust exemption is probably the only way for it to survive in a form that's anything even remotely similar to what currently exists. There is no real desire among the public to destroy the NCAA and the educational opportunities and traditional events it offers. The public just wants the NCAA to be more fair to its student athletes...lol...oh, and they dont want have their public institutions getting in bidding wars for players and coaches. I dont know how you do that without an antitrust exemption. Hard to say its not in the public interest when you consider tax dollars are either directly or indirectly footing much of the bill.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2020 08:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-09-2020 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,313
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 846
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #16
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As I’ve said before, given the parade of never ending lawsuits, the only way anything even resembling the current NCAA model survives is if college athletics is granted an antitrust exemption in exchange for expanded government oversight of college athletics aimed at protecting student athletes. Anything short of an antitrust exemption means endless law suits challenging the existence of the current model.

I think government oversight is coming....and I believe the antitrust exemption is much more likely to happen than many think.

I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.

The reason I think anti-trust legislation makes sense is its the only route that leads to a solution that makes sense. These are academic institutions. Most are losing money on athletics. The primary purpose of these institutions is education. Its already not in the public interest for these institutions to get into bidding wars for coaches. The situation just gets worse when you have bidding wars for players. Additionally---the situation is further complicated by forcing these institutions to maintain women's sports programs that generate no revenue and represent an economic anchor on athletic programs. You cant insist with one hand that an institution operate as a completely free market capitalistic entity----while using the other hand to force the institution to operate as a socialistic operation that exists only to provide free scholarships. Oh---and by the way---make sure the schools educate the kids while they are there (which is suppose to be the primary function of the institution).

An antitrust exemption is the only way to create a model thats actually in the public interest which allows the players to share in the revenue created by the game without causing expenses (that the revenue frankly doesnt support) to explode. It also would allow all those title 9 opportunities to remain in place. Frankly, if any sports entity deserves an anti-trust exemption---it would probably be something like college sports.

I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.

Its not about sympathy. The NCAA is seen as wrong in the pay for play dispute---but by and large---the NCAA has a pretty positive image among the public. Its college football---smiling athletes---March Madness---traditional football games on Saturdays--athletic sportsmanship---scholarships for hard working athletes and achievers. Nobody is endearing themselves to voters by damaging that or making it go away.

The idea is to figure out how to make it work better for all involved. An anittrust exemption makes the NCAA function exactly how they want it. They want it to provide free athletic scholarship opportunities for women. They want the athletes to share in the revenue. They want the current competitive balance to be relatively unchanged. They want to keep the expense side of the equation under control for public institutions. They want the kids to get an education.

An anti-trust exemption is probably the only way for it to survive in a form that's anything even remotely similar to what currently exists. There is no real desire among the public to destroy the NCAA and the educational opportunities and traditional events it offers. The public just wants the NCAA to be more fair to its student athletes...lol...oh, and they dont want have their public institutions getting in bidding wars for players and coaches. I dont know how you do that without an antitrust exemption. Hard to say its not in the public interest when you consider tax dollars are either directly or indirectly footing much of the bill.

I think federal involvement is likely, but unlikely to take the form of an anti-trust exemption in some blanket sense. As I indicated, such an exemption could empower the NCAA to regain control of football media rights, something the Power conferences would never allow.

More likely, a law will be passed to create uniformity in pay-for-play across the states, maybe just for name and likeness, maybe for paying players directly as well. But that's all it will address. This law, merely by having been passed at a later date, would naturally supersede any anti-trust provisions that would conflict with it, but otherwise leave the NCAA subject to anti-trust in other areas.

Again, there's no reason to think Title IX will factor in to this, as neither congress nor the courts would ever allow any school to use the "need" to bid for players as an excuse to shirk their T9 responsibilities, any more than they allow the "need" to bid on coaches to do the same now.

The likely effect of all this will be to just make things harder on the "middle guys", not the little guys, because FCS and below aren't going to get involved in bidding for players anyway. The "middle guys", the G5 types that are already running big structural deficits funded by student fees and institutional transfers will be squeezed even more as they strive to ante-up to chase the quixotic dream. Because part of their package-of-persuasion to lure that 3* quarterback will now have to involved some more money on top of the scholarship.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 09:32 AM by quo vadis.)
02-10-2020 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawgNBama Online
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 3,446
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 102
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #17
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Still can't believe there's no JR comment on this thread.
02-10-2020 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,349
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 587
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #18
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-10-2020 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think there is any chance of an anti-trust exemption.

I do see federal regulation to synchronize the 20-30 different laws that may come out.

The reason I think anti-trust legislation makes sense is its the only route that leads to a solution that makes sense. These are academic institutions. Most are losing money on athletics. The primary purpose of these institutions is education. Its already not in the public interest for these institutions to get into bidding wars for coaches. The situation just gets worse when you have bidding wars for players. Additionally---the situation is further complicated by forcing these institutions to maintain women's sports programs that generate no revenue and represent an economic anchor on athletic programs. You cant insist with one hand that an institution operate as a completely free market capitalistic entity----while using the other hand to force the institution to operate as a socialistic operation that exists only to provide free scholarships. Oh---and by the way---make sure the schools educate the kids while they are there (which is suppose to be the primary function of the institution).

An antitrust exemption is the only way to create a model thats actually in the public interest which allows the players to share in the revenue created by the game without causing expenses (that the revenue frankly doesnt support) to explode. It also would allow all those title 9 opportunities to remain in place. Frankly, if any sports entity deserves an anti-trust exemption---it would probably be something like college sports.

I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.

Its not about sympathy. The NCAA is seen as wrong in the pay for play dispute---but by and large---the NCAA has a pretty positive image among the public. Its college football---smiling athletes---March Madness---traditional football games on Saturdays--athletic sportsmanship---scholarships for hard working athletes and achievers. Nobody is endearing themselves to voters by damaging that or making it go away.

The idea is to figure out how to make it work better for all involved. An anittrust exemption makes the NCAA function exactly how they want it. They want it to provide free athletic scholarship opportunities for women. They want the athletes to share in the revenue. They want the current competitive balance to be relatively unchanged. They want to keep the expense side of the equation under control for public institutions. They want the kids to get an education.

An anti-trust exemption is probably the only way for it to survive in a form that's anything even remotely similar to what currently exists. There is no real desire among the public to destroy the NCAA and the educational opportunities and traditional events it offers. The public just wants the NCAA to be more fair to its student athletes...lol...oh, and they dont want have their public institutions getting in bidding wars for players and coaches. I dont know how you do that without an antitrust exemption. Hard to say its not in the public interest when you consider tax dollars are either directly or indirectly footing much of the bill.

I think federal involvement is likely, but unlikely to take the form of an anti-trust exemption in some blanket sense. As I indicated, such an exemption could empower the NCAA to regain control of football media rights, something the Power conferences would never allow.

More likely, a law will be passed to create uniformity in pay-for-play across the states, maybe just for name and likeness, maybe for paying players directly as well. But that's all it will address. This law, merely by having been passed at a later date, would naturally supersede any anti-trust provisions that would conflict with it, but otherwise leave the NCAA subject to anti-trust in other areas.

Again, there's no reason to think Title IX will factor in to this, as neither congress nor the courts would ever allow any school to use the "need" to bid for players as an excuse to shirk their T9 responsibilities, any more than they allow the "need" to bid on coaches to do the same now.

The likely effect of all this will be to just make things harder on the "middle guys", not the little guys, because FCS and below aren't going to get involved in bidding for players anyway. The "middle guys", the G5 types that are already running big structural deficits funded by student fees and institutional transfers will be squeezed even more as they strive to ante-up to chase the quixotic dream. Because part of their package-of-persuasion to lure that 3* quarterback will now have to involved some more money on top of the scholarship.

I believe that's all correct. It's an excellent point that the Power 5 actually benefit from the NCAA *not* having an antitrust exemption. I also think that there's pretty much no political willpower to give the NCAA any type of antitrust exemption: conservatives and liberals both love using the NCAA as a punching bag equally. True pay for play directly from the schools could cause Title IX issues, but that's not going to be the case for third party compensation for likenesses (which is largely what we're dealing with in the new state laws that are being passed).

It's really not that complicated: the most likely outcome is that there's a national law that allows for athletes to be compensated for their likenesses similar to the California law that was passed. No more and no less. There seems to be this hope from some fans that the federal government will somehow use this issue to intervene further into other areas of college sports and I don't think that will be the case at all. I can't emphasize this enough: the NCAA is a true bipartisan unifying issue... in that both parties can't stand the NCAA. There's little evidence that Congress is going to help them out one bit on even a single issue, much less granting them an antitrust exemption.
02-10-2020 10:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,104
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #19
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-10-2020 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason I think anti-trust legislation makes sense is its the only route that leads to a solution that makes sense. These are academic institutions. Most are losing money on athletics. The primary purpose of these institutions is education. Its already not in the public interest for these institutions to get into bidding wars for coaches. The situation just gets worse when you have bidding wars for players. Additionally---the situation is further complicated by forcing these institutions to maintain women's sports programs that generate no revenue and represent an economic anchor on athletic programs. You cant insist with one hand that an institution operate as a completely free market capitalistic entity----while using the other hand to force the institution to operate as a socialistic operation that exists only to provide free scholarships. Oh---and by the way---make sure the schools educate the kids while they are there (which is suppose to be the primary function of the institution).

An antitrust exemption is the only way to create a model thats actually in the public interest which allows the players to share in the revenue created by the game without causing expenses (that the revenue frankly doesnt support) to explode. It also would allow all those title 9 opportunities to remain in place. Frankly, if any sports entity deserves an anti-trust exemption---it would probably be something like college sports.

I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.

Its not about sympathy. The NCAA is seen as wrong in the pay for play dispute---but by and large---the NCAA has a pretty positive image among the public. Its college football---smiling athletes---March Madness---traditional football games on Saturdays--athletic sportsmanship---scholarships for hard working athletes and achievers. Nobody is endearing themselves to voters by damaging that or making it go away.

The idea is to figure out how to make it work better for all involved. An anittrust exemption makes the NCAA function exactly how they want it. They want it to provide free athletic scholarship opportunities for women. They want the athletes to share in the revenue. They want the current competitive balance to be relatively unchanged. They want to keep the expense side of the equation under control for public institutions. They want the kids to get an education.

An anti-trust exemption is probably the only way for it to survive in a form that's anything even remotely similar to what currently exists. There is no real desire among the public to destroy the NCAA and the educational opportunities and traditional events it offers. The public just wants the NCAA to be more fair to its student athletes...lol...oh, and they dont want have their public institutions getting in bidding wars for players and coaches. I dont know how you do that without an antitrust exemption. Hard to say its not in the public interest when you consider tax dollars are either directly or indirectly footing much of the bill.

I think federal involvement is likely, but unlikely to take the form of an anti-trust exemption in some blanket sense. As I indicated, such an exemption could empower the NCAA to regain control of football media rights, something the Power conferences would never allow.

More likely, a law will be passed to create uniformity in pay-for-play across the states, maybe just for name and likeness, maybe for paying players directly as well. But that's all it will address. This law, merely by having been passed at a later date, would naturally supersede any anti-trust provisions that would conflict with it, but otherwise leave the NCAA subject to anti-trust in other areas.

Again, there's no reason to think Title IX will factor in to this, as neither congress nor the courts would ever allow any school to use the "need" to bid for players as an excuse to shirk their T9 responsibilities, any more than they allow the "need" to bid on coaches to do the same now.

The likely effect of all this will be to just make things harder on the "middle guys", not the little guys, because FCS and below aren't going to get involved in bidding for players anyway. The "middle guys", the G5 types that are already running big structural deficits funded by student fees and institutional transfers will be squeezed even more as they strive to ante-up to chase the quixotic dream. Because part of their package-of-persuasion to lure that 3* quarterback will now have to involved some more money on top of the scholarship.

I believe that's all correct. It's an excellent point that the Power 5 actually benefit from the NCAA *not* having an antitrust exemption. I also think that there's pretty much no political willpower to give the NCAA any type of antitrust exemption: conservatives and liberals both love using the NCAA as a punching bag equally. True pay for play directly from the schools could cause Title IX issues, but that's not going to be the case for third party compensation for likenesses (which is largely what we're dealing with in the new state laws that are being passed).

It's really not that complicated: the most likely outcome is that there's a national law that allows for athletes to be compensated for their likenesses similar to the California law that was passed. No more and no less. There seems to be this hope from some fans that the federal government will somehow use this issue to intervene further into other areas of college sports and I don't think that will be the case at all. I can't emphasize this enough: the NCAA is a true bipartisan unifying issue... in that both parties can't stand the NCAA. There's little evidence that Congress is going to help them out one bit on even a single issue, much less granting them an antitrust exemption.

Except that the Olympic model won’t work for college sports, doesn’t stop the runaway coaches salaries some politicians have attacked, and probably won’t funnel a dime to 90% of student athletes (thus doesn’t really solve the problem the public would like solved). An antitrust exemption with salary caps and revenue sharing is the only thing thats going to actually solve the problem. It’s the only thing that allows the athletes to share in the revenues, protect title 9 opportunities, while providing some sort of effective cost controls (which is clearly in the public interests—certainly for the public funded institutions). It also does this while avoiding damaging the end product (college football and basketball) which the general public is quite fond of. Most any other solution likely destroys the game as Americans have come to know it. It’s also worth noting that any “solution” that would likley result in a reduction in the number of scholarship opportunities is likely a non-starter.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 11:13 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-10-2020 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 217
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 17
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #20
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
The problem for the NCAA is that even if it gets exactly what it wants - the status quo or at most a severely limited ability for athletes to monetize their NIL, consistent across states - the NCAA has absolutely no ability to enforce the rules and the member institutions pay lip service to the idea of amateurism while having only a very perfunctory compliance structure in place. We're two and a half years out from when the pervasiveness of money in college basketball was laid out for everyone to see, and not only have no schools been penalized yet, the NCAA hasn't even managed to put together an NOA against the vast majority of teams linked to the scandal.

As best I can tell, the plan seems to be for the NCAA to stay static and then hope that the NBA, and shoe companies, and AAU, and USA Basketball are all willing to do things that will help the NCAA continue on with a structure that made sense for them 60 years ago. So that's the real issue. The doom and gloomers can talk about how changes to the system are a threat to the institution of college sports, but those people must also recognize that the lack of plan and vision by the NCAA is also a threat.
02-10-2020 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 3 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.