The idea that the government getting involved is to forced all schools to pay their players even though the players are getting paid for scholarships, room & board, fcoas and so forth. This includes D2, D3, NAIA, NCCAA, USCAA, NJCAA and other college sports orgs which includes Collegiate rodeo.

(07-17-2021 05:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The idea that the government getting involved is to forced all schools to pay their players even though the players are getting paid for scholarships, room & board, fcoas and so forth. This includes D2, D3, NAIA, NCCAA, USCAA, NJCAA and other college sports orgs which includes Collegiate rodeo.

Uh...No it doesn’t ....

(07-17-2021 01:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

I don't foresee universities ever paying players directly. Then you have to make them employees, let them form unions if they desire, etc. And we're really only talking football and basketball.

I also disagree about the amateur model you seem to mourn. It's not amateur when the two sports bring in billions annually. It's just illegal to do that and not somehow let players profit off the same system. But NIL works fine, in theory. I think reality is it will work for a few stars, and a few willing business-owning boosters with money to burn (plus some inevitable cheaters, as always), not so much for everybody else. But the opportunity is there if the player is good enough, as you say.

As for chasing a football natty with 10 conferences, that has never been real. It's 5 conferences. The latest possibility of a 12 team CFP at least gives the other 5 a sliver of a fighting chance, for the first time.

If there are no universal rules leveling the playing field it will not be 5 conferences it'll likely be 5 teams. Make your own rules means just that and most schools will not keep up.

(07-18-2021 09:16 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  If there are no universal rules leveling the playing field it will not be 5 conferences it'll likely be 5 teams. Make your own rules means just that and most schools will not keep up.

Perhaps, but if so I think it could be surprising who keeps up and who doesn't.

It won't necessarily be a straight P5/G5 split. Some of these G5 have huge alumni bases and might be able to spend very aggressively.

What holds them back right now is they lack history, prestige, which you really can't buy.

But they might have money, and you can buy things with money.

(07-18-2021 05:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-17-2021 01:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

I don't foresee universities ever paying players directly. Then you have to make them employees, let them form unions if they desire, etc. And we're really only talking football and basketball.

I also disagree about the amateur model you seem to mourn. It's not amateur when the two sports bring in billions annually. It's just illegal to do that and not somehow let players profit off the same system. But NIL works fine, in theory. I think reality is it will work for a few stars, and a few willing business-owning boosters with money to burn (plus some inevitable cheaters, as always), not so much for everybody else. But the opportunity is there if the player is good enough, as you say.

As for chasing a football natty with 10 conferences, that has never been real. It's 5 conferences. The latest possibility of a 12 team CFP at least gives the other 5 a sliver of a fighting chance, for the first time.

I think it’s fairly inconsistent to think that think the schools will avoid pay-for-play “because they don’t want it” and then decry the current amateur system as “illegal”. If it’s illegal, then eventually the schools will be forced by the courts to directly compensate the players just as any other business (and you’ve made it clear you believe college football IS a business). The first thing I expect to be challenged is the ruling that "conferences can limit player compensation". That’s an easy one to flip since it’s already been decided previously (see the NFL). If challenged, its pretty likley conferences will be told they can only limit compensation as part of a collective bargaining agreement (thats long ago decided by the courts and is generally seen as established law). The conferences are not going to win that case---which is what Kavanaugh was trying to make clear in his harshly written separate opinion.

The move to straight up pay for play obviously won’t happen voluntarily—but once it does, the split within D1 will be voluntary. Its going to take several years, but—-barring Congressional legislation directly addressing college sports by creating a special niche law governing it—there is really no other way for this play out at this point other than an eventual straight up pay-for-play model. That is where we are headed. It is what it is.

(07-17-2021 09:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

I don't know how all this works, that's for sure. Nonetheless, I find it strange for a judge to say that an individual conference "may" commit a potentially illegal act if doing so does not shield it. Is that kind of thing normal? She could have just said something like "No two conferences may agree to blah blah". Like her order, that would have prevented a monopsony but without explicitly stating that the members of individual conferences may collude. It might imply it, but it wouldn't say it.

But even if the conferences are not shielded in this matter, they might each still be allowed to limit education-related compensation to their players as specified in that order. Depends... Or even to fix prices in other ways -- again, depending. Since Regents, challenges to the NCAA's antitrust violations have been subject to the "rule of reason", not the per se rule. Even the short-lived cap on some assistant coaches' pay was not judged to be illegal off the bat. Should that precedent extend to conferences and should one get sued for violating antitrust law, that conference would have the opportunity to try to prove a procompetitive justification for doing so, like the NCAA & co-defendants successfully did in Alston regarding non-education related compensation to the plaintiff class. (Why again did Alston not appeal to SCOTUS??)

Anyway, I am personally in favor of a guaranteed wide open, school-by-school market for the services of all AD personnel, including players, and wish any future plaintiffs well.

(07-16-2021 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The move to straight up pay for play obviously won’t happen voluntarily—but once it does, the split within D1 will be voluntary. Its going to take several years, but—-barring Congressional legislation directly addressing college sports—there is really no other way for this play out at this point. We are headed for direct pay for play. It is what it is.

ala: SMU and most of the SWC in the '70's and '80's. If it was illegal then it should be illegal now. You can't have it both ways.

*** SMUstang ***

From Dennis Dodd...CBS Sports:

With the NCAA's authority quickly eroding, significant change is ahead for major college sports

The NCAA taking a step back will open a door for others to claim authority over the industry

We're at an inflection point in college athletics," one Power Five AD told CBS Sports. "What are the radical changes we need to make so that college athletics, in its current form, can live on?"

In the short term, this much seems certain:

Athletes themselves will have much more input. Their empowerment during COVID-19 and now NIL will make them stakeholders in any major legislative decisions going forward. Post-Alston, we're already trending toward group licensing that could theoretically lead to the return of the "NCAA Football" video game. Short of unionization, that would make football athletes a trade organization that at least could theoretically negotiate for such things as length of practice and other working conditions.

The professionalization of college sports already has occurred with NFL agents representing football players in NIL deals.

Big-time college athletics will essentially be run by the Power Five commissioners. Yes, that might have been happening already since autonomy took hold in 2014. The most senior of those commissioner are the Big 12's Bowlsby and the SEC's Greg Sankey. At the moment, they might be the de facto executive directors of college sports.

It's a new era for female athletes. NIL has tapped into their off-field possibilities. Any reformation of college athletics will have to adhere to Title IX.

Federal intervention may not happen at all. There is a growing realization that if Congress provides any NIL help in the form of a federal law, it will be minimal. That's another reason why the NCAA finds itself on an island.

The College Football Playoff might step in as the new de facto NCAA. With expansion, it will be generating more money and have more power. Because of that, it have to be more responsible as college athletics are reshaped.

The 27 conferences below the Power Five face a period of uncertainty. While they make up a majority of Division I, the Power Five has long enjoyed a weighted-voting advantage in legislation. That's assuming the Power Five remains a part of the NCAA.

Emmert hinted at an Olympic model where the sports themselves may have separate governing bodies. For years, the idea of a "minister" of football and basketball has circulated. As executive director of the CFP the amiable Bill Hancock is already regarded as one of the most powerful persons in college sports.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...2r2oZlJdbk

(07-18-2021 05:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't foresee universities ever paying players directly. Then you have to make them employees, let them form unions if they desire, etc. And we're really only talking football and basketball.

Right. If the best athletes or any others were to be paid, that money would be coming from boosters and not from the university general fund -- so why have the boosters give the money to the athletic department who then pays the player? Cut out the middleman (the athletic department) and let the boosters pay the athletes directly if they want to pay. That way if there's any dispute, eg if the booster cuts off Joe Quarterback after he throws too many interceptions, or if the booster just pays less than he promised to pay, the dispute is only between the booster and the athlete.

(07-16-2021 06:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Suppose that each college sport was administered by the sport's national governing body instead of the NCAA. Each of those national governing bodies has extensive experience in administrating its sport and staging championship competitions. Example: College swimming would be administered by USA Swimming, each participating school would pay annual dues that collectively cover USA Swimming's cost of administering the college competitions, including staging national championship meets.

Do the same for every college sport that has a national governing body; that would cover almost every college sport except football and even a few that aren't NCAA-sponsored, eg rugby. No need for a "one size fits all" rulebook that covers every college sport; each sport would have its own rulebook.

That idea has appeal to me, but I can't see a path to making that happen. While the schools might want national governing bodies in each sport to administer intercollegiate competition and championships, I can't think of a good reason why those bodies would want to.

If their interest is in developing talented athletes for international competition, then they would really only want to identify the cream of the crop. Why waste their time and resources indulging the thousands of college athletes who will never be more than that?

That's why there will always be a need for an organization like the NCAA - to sponsor and administer sports for all the athletes who will never be professionals or Olympians. That is to say, almost all college athletes.

Informal associations of schools that provide a development vehicle for the elite athletes with legitimate professional aspirations, like the "P5" conferences, don't comfortably fit into that model. Americans may reflexively object to the idea of associations that cater to elites in each sport, but that's always where the smart money will gravitate to, because we will all hypocritically watch those elites even while we decry their existence.

On forums like this one, some of us will swear that if college sports embrace professionalism we will stop watching. But experience says we won't.

I don't know about you, but I am getting sick and tired of seeing Clemson and Alabama in the championship game every year. And to a lesser extent Oklahoma, LSU and Ohio State in the playoffs all of the time. I'm about ready to tune it out.

*** SMUstang ***

Deregulating college football will only widen this gap. The haves can afford to have more. While the have nots cannot.

(07-18-2021 07:00 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Deregulating college football will only widen this gap. The haves can afford to have more. While the have nots cannot.

Or the schools and alums that are actually willing to invest can make some headway...

That will be great for some athletes in paid sports bball and football, but for most especially in olympic sports definitely not.
Why would a school offer scholarships for players who are paid already. If I don't offer scholarships for football and basketball why would I offer them for the equivalent number of title 9 sports? This will definitely have consequences for athletes, some positive some negative.

(07-18-2021 11:42 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Why would a school offer scholarships for players who are paid already. If I don't offer scholarships for football and basketball why would I offer them for the equivalent number of title 9 sports?

Try to put yourself in the place of a recruit instead of a fan.

Let's say that a four-star recruit is choosing between two schools, and he likes their teams and coaches about equally, and he can make about $50,000 of NIL money per year at each place. Both schools are public universities that are out-of-state to the recruit.

Team A still offers full scholarships. Team B uses your proposed strategy and tells the recruit, "No scholarship for you, pay your own way, sucker."

If the recruit chooses Team A, he gets $50,000/year in NIL money plus a full scholarship. Because his school expenses are all paid for, he has $50,000/year in his bank account to spend or save as he chooses.

If the recruit chooses Team B, he gets $50,000/year in NIL money but has to pay the school about $50,000 per year in tuition, room and board, books, etc. All of his NIL money is lost, and his bank account is empty, because you gave him no scholarship and he has to pay his own way.

If you think this recruit is going to choose your Team B, I don't know what to tell you.

(07-16-2021 03:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  “We need to be ready to say, ‘Yeah, you know, for field hockey, field hockey is different than football. Wrestling is different than lacrosse,’ and not get so hung up on having everything be the same,” said Emmert, who was president of LSU and the University of Washington before taking the NCAA job in 2010."

To me, this is the most important part of what Emmert had to say. It's something that all the players here - the NCAA, the conferences, the schools, the States, Congress - must acknowledge before we will see a reasonable approach to college sports.

Football and men's basketball are fundamentally different from all other sports, and need to be treated that way.

IMO, the NCAA needs to completely divorce itself from football and men's basketball if it wants to survive as a relevant institution. Maybe it would be smaller if the NCAA were to require that D-I schools award, say, 200 scholarships in sports other than football & men's basketball. Not just play X number of sports, some of which they don't award many scholarships. Actually award a lot of scholarships.

Then let the number of women's sports vs men's sports be the purview of Title IX, not the NCAA.

Fixed it for you!!!

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(07-18-2021 11:42 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  That will be great for some athletes in paid sports bball and football, but for most especially in olympic sports definitely not.

Why would a school offer scholarships for players who are paid already.

The question assumes that the athletes in Olympic sports are paid.

Quote: If I don't offer scholarships for football and basketball why would I offer them for the equivalent number of title 9 sports?

This is one of the drivers for having the money sports be under a for-profit company with a license agreement with the University ... that removes the football and basketball team from Title IX consideration.