Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,987
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1319
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #21
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(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 agree with your account of what is likely to happen, but think it means what i said. If Emmert was talking to Biden administration officials and Congressional leadership and there was strong movement towards a antitrust rescue, he would be telling conferences "don't panic, no need for the NCAA to make big changes, the rescue is on the way".

But i think he knows it ain't.
07-16-2021 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,548
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 136
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
i guess each conference can set its own scholarship limits
will the “ autonomous “ conferences even need to be autonomous ?
i can see where the A5 can just form their own league or any combination of conferences
will FCS conferences just proclaim to be D1, FBS or what ever classification they want or heck what any conference wants to call them selves because
conferences will just want the best tv package they can get and most likely will do anything to get that ccp money
Disney will have even more power and control over any conference it pays big bucks to and that means what’s good for china is good for Disney
this most likely will lead to big time censorship by Disney, for instance if a conference has big money tv contract with espn (Disney) and a single school dose not support confucius institute ( on campus) then they will simply cut off all money to that school or the whole conference, i mean these people are sick, that’s Disney and all its associations with ccp and the new global world order
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2021 07:04 PM by JHS55.)
07-16-2021 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,027
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
I think the rules can be thrown out the window as well since this does effect college sports at all levels and not just the 3 Ds of the NCAA. I could see more large schools moving up to D1 and the smaller schools dropping out of D1. Not all schools be able to stay at D1 if they have to pay players and all that.

West Texas A&M, Angelo State, Midwestern State, UCO, Colorado Mesa, all the public California schools, Central Washington, and so forth might come up especially in areas that need more schools to fill up close cheap travel costs for all schools at the D1 level. NCAA could eliminate the two lower Ds by allowing the NAIA take over for the small schools while the large D2 and D3 schools move up to D1. You could create 4 levels at D1 then.

P7 which includes MWC and AAC, BYU and UTEP joining MWC with ARMY, UMass. and North Dakota State joining AAC.
G5 could go to G8 with Big Sky, CAA, C-USA, MAC, SBC, MVFC, WAC and A-Sun.

You can have FCS as The rest of full scholarship FCS level with the conferences like Lone Star and them. The fourth would be small amounts of scholarships and none like Pioneer and Ivy league.
07-16-2021 07:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,485
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 174
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #24
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 05:32 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  How do teams play on an even field if conferences have their own rules. This would basically mean anything goes. The top conferences will put even more distance between themselves and everyone else..this seems certain a split is unavoidable.

Or basically a couple of conference goes our on its own. Say for example, The PAC and Big 10 decide to work together and keep the Rose Bowl for themselves….
07-16-2021 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 377
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 05:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 01:49 PM)chester Wrote:  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.

From a legal standpoint, the conferences would have the same issue as the NCAA. Collusion immediately exists with an agreement between two *schools* to curtail the free market, so that inherently includes every single conference.

Intra-conference collusion is allowed in this matter. From the injunction: https://imgur.com/4v8nzxD
07-16-2021 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,579
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 115
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #26
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 07:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the rules can be thrown out the window as well since this does effect college sports at all levels and not just the 3 Ds of the NCAA. I could see more large schools moving up to D1 and the smaller schools dropping out of D1. Not all schools be able to stay at D1 if they have to pay players and all that.

You can have FCS as The rest of full scholarship FCS level with the conferences like Lone Star and them. The fourth would be small amounts of scholarships and none like Pioneer and Ivy league.

The problem with that last group is significant disparity between schools: say, Cornell (enrollment, 14,027, football budget of $3.04 million) vs. Dean (MA) University, with an enrollment of 1,184 and football expenses of $270,000. Just because a school does not offer scholarships doesn't make it comparable.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2021 10:37 PM by DFW HOYA.)
07-16-2021 10:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,027
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 10:36 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 07:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the rules can be thrown out the window as well since this does effect college sports at all levels and not just the 3 Ds of the NCAA. I could see more large schools moving up to D1 and the smaller schools dropping out of D1. Not all schools be able to stay at D1 if they have to pay players and all that.

You can have FCS as The rest of full scholarship FCS level with the conferences like Lone Star and them. The fourth would be small amounts of scholarships and none like Pioneer and Ivy league.

The problem with that last group is significant disparity between schools: say, Cornell (enrollment, 14,027, football budget of $3.04 million) vs. Dean (MA) University, with an enrollment of 1,184 and football expenses of $270,000. Just because a school does not offer scholarships doesn't make it comparable.


I think you misunderstand me, Dean will be part of the NAIA and Cornell atill be D1.
07-16-2021 11:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,304
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 242
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 10:06 PM)chester Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 05:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 01:49 PM)chester Wrote:  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.

From a legal standpoint, the conferences would have the same issue as the NCAA. Collusion immediately exists with an agreement between two *schools* to curtail the free market, so that inherently includes every single conference.

Intra-conference collusion is allowed in this matter. From the injunction: https://imgur.com/4v8nzxD

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the notion of collusion with regard to anti-trust legislation is a matter of effectively creating a monopoly.

For example, the NFL is a monopoly not because it is illegal to begin another pro football league, but because no one else has been economically capable of producing a competitor. The same is true for the other pro sports leagues. They are national in scope and therefore the nature of the collusion creates a monopoly. Thus an anti-trust exemption is required to operate.

With regard to college conferences, this would not be the case unless each major conference colluded with each other...what the NCAA has effectively been.

The nature of the collusion in the case of conferences would be much smaller scale and would actually pit the leagues against each other. The SEC schools would collude with each other, for example, but they are not the only game in town. Labor and consumers have options in the other leagues by contrast.

To further illustrate, each McDonald's franchise colludes with all the others. They have common practices but multiple stakeholders. They compete with each other in some respect as many markets are tapped by multiple locations. Nonetheless, this does not represent collusion in the legal sense because obviously there are numerous competitors to the McDonald's brand.

Legally, as long as the SEC and Big Ten and all the others maintain some distance from each other then they have greater freedom to regulate themselves. Unfortunately, they must become competitors in every real sense rather than falling back on the NCAA or an organization like it.
07-17-2021 12:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,987
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1319
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #29
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 10:06 PM)chester Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 05:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 01:49 PM)chester Wrote:  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.

From a legal standpoint, the conferences would have the same issue as the NCAA. Collusion immediately exists with an agreement between two *schools* to curtail the free market, so that inherently includes every single conference.

Intra-conference collusion is allowed in this matter. From the injunction: https://imgur.com/4v8nzxD

Good point. But, will this injunction be the last word? That's from a district court, no?

I could imagine that once conferences start setting their own limits, lawsuits will be filed in other district courts claiming that the 14 members of the SEC are a "cartel" fixing prices, and if the SEC replies that well if an athlete doesn't like their limit they can play for a MAC school where there are no limits, the athlete will claim the SEC is a dominant conference with disproportionate market power, that they would suffer significant transition costs and career visibility would be less at a MAC school, etc.

I'm not saying those are good arguments, but I think they could be made, and they might somehow prevail in another venue.
07-17-2021 05:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,683
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 663
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #30
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.
07-17-2021 07:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,987
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1319
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #31
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2021 08:25 AM by quo vadis.)
07-17-2021 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 491
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.

I would be stunned if the Federal Government gave the NCAA an Anti-Trust Exemption....the NFL been trying for decades and I would not look for Congress to really get into this...as a matter of fact you have Senators that want to currently end the MLB Anti-Trust Exemption.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2021 08:32 AM by Maize.)
07-17-2021 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUstang Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,669
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 177
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Post: #33
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
Is he saying no penalties, sanctions, or "death penalties" should come from a centralized, governing group?

SMUstang
07-17-2021 09:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MattBrownEP Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 124
Joined: Feb 2021
Reputation: 54
I Root For: ohio state
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
I'm writing about this on Monday.

I think a lot of folks are misunderstanding what he's talking about here in the name of getting in some (deserved) dunks.
07-17-2021 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,090
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 705
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #35
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 05:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 10:06 PM)chester Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 05:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-16-2021 01:49 PM)chester Wrote:  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.

From a legal standpoint, the conferences would have the same issue as the NCAA. Collusion immediately exists with an agreement between two *schools* to curtail the free market, so that inherently includes every single conference.

Intra-conference collusion is allowed in this matter. From the injunction: https://imgur.com/4v8nzxD

Good point. But, will this injunction be the last word? That's from a district court, no?

I could imagine that once conferences start setting their own limits, lawsuits will be filed in other district courts claiming that the 14 members of the SEC are a "cartel" fixing prices, and if the SEC replies that well if an athlete doesn't like their limit they can play for a MAC school where there are no limits, the athlete will claim the SEC is a dominant conference with disproportionate market power, that they would suffer significant transition costs and career visibility would be less at a MAC school, etc.

I'm not saying those are good arguments, but I think they could be made, and they might somehow prevail in another venue.

Correct - the ruling may provide the exception for now in an attempt to not to be overbroad, but lawsuits would happen almost immediately against the conferences similar to the NCAA.

Remember that antitrust law isn’t simply about monopolies. Price-fixing between competitors (including fixing compensation for personnel) comes under antitrust law and that can occur simply between two parties whether they’re monopolies/oligopolies or not.

We can see a direct example with coaching. Do you see conferences impose coaching salary limits on its members? Of course not… because that would be a per se violation of antitrust laws! The best guidance here is that whatever can or can’t be restricted regarding coaches today will be similar to what can and can’t be restricted for the student-athletes going forward.
07-17-2021 09:34 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,683
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 663
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #36
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.

I wasn't so much thinking that Congress could give schools any slack when it comes to football. What I was thinking is that they could deem football, as opposed to all other sports, to be a business activity unrelated to schools' tax exempt purpose of education. In this case, this isn't an anti-trust issue at all, and needs no exemption.

By ruling that football is a for-profit business subject to being taxed on its profits, they could justify treating it differently than other sports for Title IX purposes. Because it's still mostly just the P5 schools that are actually making a profit, that wouldn't hurt the vast majority of NCAA schools. And it would incentivize the profitable schools to pay their players more to reduce the tax bite. It's football players more than almost any other athletes who are seen as being exploited by the current system.


Such a decision could also have as an unintended consequence the early termination of media contracts, including GoRs, if schools could elect to be in different conferences for football than they are for other sports. North Carolina, for example, could choose to play football by SEC rules regarding athlete compensation and continue to play basketball in the ACC. That could facilitate a reorganization in which the two behemoths of college football separate themselves from schools with lesser resources or stronger opposition to professionalism.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2021 01:08 PM by ken d.)
07-17-2021 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,090
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 705
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #37
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 01:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.

I wasn't so much thinking that Congress could give schools any slack when it comes to football. What I was thinking is that they could deem football, as opposed to all other sports, to be a business activity unrelated to schools' tax exempt purpose of education. In this case, this isn't an anti-trust issue at all, and needs no exemption.

By ruling that football is a for-profit business subject to being taxed on its profits, they could justify treating it differently than other sports for Title IX purposes. Because it's still mostly just the P5 schools that are actually making a profit, that wouldn't hurt the vast majority of NCAA schools. And it would incentivize the profitable schools to pay their players more to reduce the tax bite. It's football players more than almost any other athletes who are seen as being exploited by the current system.


Such a decision could also have as an unintended consequence the early termination of media contracts, including GoRs, if schools could elect to be in different conferences for football than they are for other sports. North Carolina, for example, could choose to play football by SEC rules regarding athlete compensation and continue to play basketball in the ACC. That could facilitate a reorganization in which the two behemoths of college football separate themselves from schools with lesser resources or stronger opposition to professionalism.

I doubt that would fly if the schools still want to be tied to those for-profit football teams. This seems to be an attempt at “form over substance” - try to change the form of an entity to get around the substance of the rule. Even if this could conceivably be done under the current law, I’d see that loophole closed very quickly. At that point, colleges would have lost their tax exempt status for their football programs in the process and still have the same Title IX compliance issues.

Ultimately, I don’t think most colleges are really that bothered by Title IX per se. These are institutions that (at least superficially) are on the front of gender equity issues compared to most of the rest of society. They’d get very heavy pushback within academia if any school tried to get around Title IX in the manner that you’ve noted (or any other manner, for that matter).

Instead, these schools are just reflexively bothered that they’re going to have to deal with compensation issues with players (whether directly or indirectly via third party NIL endorsements) that were super profitable for many decades. Title IX compliance is often just a bogeyman for a lot of people that don’t agree with the premise of Title IX in the first place. Trying to exclude football from Title IX compliance calculations in any manner pretty much defeats the whole purpose of Title IX as applied to college athletics.
07-17-2021 01:38 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 36,367
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-16-2021 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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 agree with your account of what is likely to happen, but think it means what i said. If Emmert was talking to Biden administration officials and Congressional leadership and there was strong movement towards a antitrust rescue, he would be telling conferences "don't panic, no need for the NCAA to make big changes, the rescue is on the way".

But i think he knows it ain't.

Because the sport as we know it has already been destroyed. While there were 10 separate FBS leagues---the biggest race followed in college football as we know it has always been national championship. With each league playing by different rules, the coherent national D1 athletic arena where teams competed within some sort of consistent structure providing for a reasonably level national playing field---is dead. The sport we have followed since the 1960's is essentially gone. It may be that once legislators see what their inaction has done---maybe they offer anti-trust exemption (along with substantial governmental regulation that creates a body designed to protect/negotiate player interests) so the players can be paid while preserving a traditional competitive model. If not---whatever form of college football that emerges from this new pay-for-play era will be radically different from what we have been watching since the 1960's.

What I see as the most likely outcome is a split in D1. There will be a new smaller full on pay-for-play league at the top level of college sports. A scholarship "only" division that resembles the current sport would be the next level down. The "scholarship only" model on a national level will be fine as long as there is a pay-for-play"division" above it. From a market prospective----if none of the pay-for-play schools is willing to sign you as a player---then I'd say thats pretty good market based evidence that your "market value" as a player commodity is that of an "amateur". Thus, the "scholarship only" compensation model is a more than reasonable compensation model for players at the amateur level.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2021 01:57 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-17-2021 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 18,140
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 862
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #39
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 01:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 01:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.

I wasn't so much thinking that Congress could give schools any slack when it comes to football. What I was thinking is that they could deem football, as opposed to all other sports, to be a business activity unrelated to schools' tax exempt purpose of education. In this case, this isn't an anti-trust issue at all, and needs no exemption.

By ruling that football is a for-profit business subject to being taxed on its profits, they could justify treating it differently than other sports for Title IX purposes. Because it's still mostly just the P5 schools that are actually making a profit, that wouldn't hurt the vast majority of NCAA schools. And it would incentivize the profitable schools to pay their players more to reduce the tax bite. It's football players more than almost any other athletes who are seen as being exploited by the current system.


Such a decision could also have as an unintended consequence the early termination of media contracts, including GoRs, if schools could elect to be in different conferences for football than they are for other sports. North Carolina, for example, could choose to play football by SEC rules regarding athlete compensation and continue to play basketball in the ACC. That could facilitate a reorganization in which the two behemoths of college football separate themselves from schools with lesser resources or stronger opposition to professionalism.

I doubt that would fly if the schools still want to be tied to those for-profit football teams. This seems to be an attempt at “form over substance” - try to change the form of an entity to get around the substance of the rule. Even if this could conceivably be done under the current law, I’d see that loophole closed very quickly. At that point, colleges would have lost their tax exempt status for their football programs in the process and still have the same Title IX compliance issues.

Ultimately, I don’t think most colleges are really that bothered by Title IX per se. These are institutions that (at least superficially) are on the front of gender equity issues compared to most of the rest of society. They’d get very heavy pushback within academia if any school tried to get around Title IX in the manner that you’ve noted (or any other manner, for that matter).

Instead, these schools are just reflexively bothered that they’re going to have to deal with compensation issues with players (whether directly or indirectly via third party NIL endorsements) that were super profitable for many decades. Title IX compliance is often just a bogeyman for a lot of people that don’t agree with the premise of Title IX in the first place. Trying to exclude football from Title IX compliance calculations in any manner pretty much defeats the whole purpose of Title IX as applied to college athletics.

The schools could do it, but they'd have to give up complete control of their football programs. A school (University of Tennessee, in this example) could license, to a private corporation, the right to use the University of Tennessee name, Tennessee Volunteers team name, the logos and colors of the university and its football team, give the corporation a lease to use Neyland Stadium, and let the corporation operate a football team under the university's name. The university and athletic department would have no say over the operation of the football team, other than what any landlord would have over a tenant operating a business in the landlord's building.

Would a university administration do this? Probably not. Would the team's boosters and the school's alumni hate the idea? Probably they would. Given that, they can all just live with the laws and regulations that go with the football program being a part of the university.
07-17-2021 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Erictelevision Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Associated Press: NCAA’s Emmert: It is time to decentralize college sports
(07-17-2021 08:30 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2021 07:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  We tend to think of intercollegiate sports as if it is a market unto itself, and subject to compliance with anti-monopoly statutes within its own niche. But, to the extent that some sports (what we call revenue sports) are essentially part of the entertainment industry, they are competing with professional enterprises as well as other schools.

With respect to the "labor force" for these sports, limits placed on earning power should also consider opportunities reasonably available to athletes outside the intercollegiate market niche. If a baseball player is eligible for the MLB draft (or NHL draft), playing for a minor league or even major league team is a viable choice. Opting instead to play collegiately, without compensation above cost of attendance, is a market driven free choice players make, and there clearly is no reason why Congress or courts should put their thumb on the scales by imposing further requirements for cash compensation.

It is only when there are significant barriers to entry to professional leagues based on factors other than ability that the government should have an interest and a role in regulating opportunities. Football, it seems to me, is an area where the government has a legitimate say, since players are not eligible to be drafted or signed until they have been out of high school for three years, and there are no minor or developmental league options.

We have to recognize that even in a world where the United States is unique with respect to incorporating athletics within its colleges and universities, football is fundamentally different from all other sports. That it holds a prominent place in American culture is undeniable. It should be recognized and treated as such by our government.

That being said, Congress and the courts have already inserted themselves into college sports through Title IX, and I don't believe they will abandon that. So, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Title IX is between the government and individual schools. So the NCAA should leave policing that to government, and need not concern themselves with whether their members are in compliance. And IMO the government should not lump football with other sports in determining whether schools are in compliance.

Some interesting ideas here, my responses:

1) Does the NCAA have Title IX sanctions? That's a federal law so is enforced by the courts. But does the NCAA have its own sanctions, like probation, if a school is found guilty of Title IX violations? If so, then it should not have them. As you say, that's between the feds and the school.

2) IMO there is zero chance that the courts or congress will ever carve out any kind of Title IX or antitrust exception for football. If anything, Title IX continues to be more and more stringently enforced and that trend is not changing. I think anyone who tries to propose that will immediately get ridiculed on social media and the next day they will be issuing one of those corporate press release type apologies reaffirming their commitment to "gender equity" and all that and groveling for forgiveness. And FWIW, I believe the way Title IX has been applied to athletics is absurd, it shouldn't involve scholarship athletics at all, market demand should determine scholarships and the like. But that's just the way it is.

3) Regarding anti-trust, I agree that courts should view college athletics more holistically, as part of a broader sports and entertainment market. But I think all the signs say that's not happening either. The courts have for decades bought the idea that the NCAA is a monopoly and has dealt with it harshly. Nor do I think it likely that they will look at individual sports differently based on pro opportunities and the like.

Again, I don't necessarily agree but I don't see it changing. As some have said around here, while democrats and republicans are at each other's throats on almost all issues, the way the courts have been clobbering the NCAA has met with almost universal approval.

So I don't think Emmert or the NCAA have any reason to think the Feds will carve out exceptions for them or football.

I would be stunned if the Federal Government gave the NCAA an Anti-Trust Exemption....the NFL been trying for decades and I would not look for Congress to really get into this...as a matter of fact you have Senators that want to currently end the MLB Anti-Trust Exemption.

Are you saying you want to abolish the distinction between amateur and pro sports? AND eliminate pro league CBAs?
07-17-2021 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.