After a 9-0 Supreme Court smackdown I'd be weary of setting myself up for collusion claims

(08-25-2021 10:23 AM)solohawks Wrote:  After a 9-0 Supreme Court smackdown I'd be weary of setting myself up for collusion claims

What you said....

Heh heh, a good public reminder that schools can't just do whatever they like with athletes' compensation.

The Alliance knows all about the Alston injunction, though, and I doubt schools will include the ability to cap education benefits in their hopeless requests for antitrust exemption since those benefits are now uncapped at the DI level. And they don't need to ask Congress to let them cap pay for post-eligibility internships or to require an academic threshold for cash awards; they can ask that of Judge Wilken. (Doubt she'll allow the former.)

Schools ought to get a sugar daddy and put all kids on NIL scholarships. When they underperform...they can cut them off.

That SCOTUS decision allows conferences to set limits. It said the NCAA couldn’t. I don’t believe it addressed anything about multiple conferences doing it together.

Puzzling as to why the SEC wasn't sent a letter also. I would, if I was as an attorney. It's called doing due diligence.

(08-25-2021 12:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  That SCOTUS decision allows conferences to set limits. It said the NCAA couldn’t. I don’t believe it addressed anything about multiple conferences doing it together.

SCOTUS affirmed the district court's decision and the DC's injunction prohibits inter-conference collusion. A failure to do that would have defeated the purpose of breaking the NCAA's monopsony of the market for the services of the the plaintiff class while allowing individual conferences to cap education benefits on top of GIA. See paragraphs 6 & 7 of the injunction:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/le...ar2019.pdf

Thanks. I had not seen that in detail.

(08-25-2021 12:59 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Thanks. I had not seen that in detail.

A little more

(08-25-2021 12:53 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Puzzling as to why the SEC wasn't sent a letter also. I would, if I was as an attorney. It's called doing due diligence.

The SEC wasn't sent a letter because one conference doesn't make a conspiracy. 3 do.

The alliance was sent a letter exactly for the reasons I detailed last week, when as usual the wonks said conspiracy theory to that and my assertion that the 41 members were not some kind of voting threat to the SEC but rather a palpable number to solicit their House representatives for a law capping NIL and stipends to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling.

Well point #6 of the alliance's statement was an implicit endorsement of the NCAA.

Point#7 was a call for legislative action to cap NIL and prevent the uncapping of stipends.

Any one conference may set its own policies and the SEC has. Two or more conferences may not get together to do so because that is by definition collusion.

I still maintain that all the alliance is about is remaining under some form of the corrupt and feckless NCAA, and finding a way to cap NIL and limit stipends which is in direct violation of the Alston ruling. The SEC and the CFP is just a veiled excuse to organize to solicit Congress for relief from the court ruling.

The SEC didn't do anything the other conferences wouldn't have done if OU and UT wanted in with them, Sankey was under a NDA about realignment, and the CFP benefits them all.

These lying hypocrites want to look PC and deny the players compensation at the same time. A pox on them!

Some of us knew this was coming.

If a key purpose of the Alliance is to defend the "student athlete model" or whatever euphemism is used to cover for paying everyone involved but the players, it is likely doomed to fail.

PAC/B1G/ACC: We are the alliance.

Media: They said nothing, completely useless

Alston: COLLLUUUUUUSSSSIIIOOOOONNNN!

(08-25-2021 01:32 PM)Maize Wrote:  A little more

It's good that Kessler & Berman are drawing attention to this. (They're the lead plaintiffs attorneys in House v NCAA too.) It might force the Alliance to publically explain exactly what they have in mind for players, which could hurt recruiting. Notice that no one in yesterday's press thing asked for details. Maybe questions were subject to pre-approval..? Anyway, they'll probably ask about it now if given the chance.

(08-25-2021 02:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some of us knew this was coming.

If a key purpose of the Alliance is to defend the "student athlete model" or whatever euphemism is used to cover for paying everyone involved but the players, it is likely doomed to fail.

I don’t think so. If the athletes want more or try to sue well they can find another school to play for.
Schools have more leverage than what they realize. Take the scholarship away and they have to pay tuition out of pocket or perhaps they cut from the team.

(08-25-2021 01:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well point #6 of the alliance's statement was an implicit endorsement of the NCAA.

Point#7 was a call for legislative action to cap NIL and prevent the uncapping of stipends.

Just so everyone can see what a stretch this comment is, here is the exact list of points, verbatim, from the Alliance press release:

Quote:The three conferences remain competitors in every sense but are committed to collaborating and providing thought leadership on various opportunities and challenges facing college athletics, including:

-- Student-athlete mental and physical health, safety, wellness and support

-- Strong academic experience and support

-- Diversity, equity and inclusion

-- Social justice

-- Gender equity

-- Future structure of the NCAA

-- Federal legislative efforts

-- Postseason championships and future formats

(08-25-2021 02:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 02:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some of us knew this was coming.

If a key purpose of the Alliance is to defend the "student athlete model" or whatever euphemism is used to cover for paying everyone involved but the players, it is likely doomed to fail.

I don’t think so. If the athletes want more or try to sue well they can find another school to play for.
Schools have more leverage than what they realize. Take the scholarship away and they have to pay tuition out of pocket or perhaps they cut from the team.

Schools can take scholarships away, but the problem is, you get what you (don't) pay for. In this case, if say Texas Tech stopped offering scholarships, its talent would soon sink to D3 level, where they don't have scholarships. And Texas Tech doesn't want to do that. Because other schools would still be offering scholarships.

So the problem isn't what one school does. Texas Tech doesn't have to offer anything, even scholarships, to athletes. But what it cannot do is collude with other schools to do the same.

And an "alliance" is all about .... collusion.

(08-25-2021 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 01:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well point #6 of the alliance's statement was an implicit endorsement of the NCAA.

Point#7 was a call for legislative action to cap NIL and prevent the uncapping of stipends.

Just so everyone can see what a stretch this comment is, here is the exact list of points, verbatim, from the Alliance press release:

Quote:The three conferences remain competitors in every sense but are committed to collaborating and providing thought leadership on various opportunities and challenges facing college athletics, including:

-- Student-athlete mental and physical health, safety, wellness and support

-- Strong academic experience and support

-- Diversity, equity and inclusion

-- Social justice

-- Gender equity

-- Future structure of the NCAA

-- Federal legislative efforts

-- Postseason championships and future formats

So you tell me just what other legislative efforts are available and why the NCAA needs new structure when their reason to exist, amateurism, is no longer viable.

What I see is your stretch to cover a feeble attempt at circumventing the SCOTUS and apparently the Alston attorneys saw it the same way!

Division is coming and the alliance is merely a major symptom.

(08-25-2021 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 01:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well point #6 of the alliance's statement was an implicit endorsement of the NCAA.

Point#7 was a call for legislative action to cap NIL and prevent the uncapping of stipends.

Just so everyone can see what a stretch this comment is, here is the exact list of points, verbatim, from the Alliance press release:

Quote:The three conferences remain competitors in every sense but are committed to collaborating and providing thought leadership on various opportunities and challenges facing college athletics, including:

-- Student-athlete mental and physical health, safety, wellness and support

-- Strong academic experience and support

-- Diversity, equity and inclusion

-- Social justice

-- Gender equity

-- Future structure of the NCAA

-- Federal legislative efforts

-- Postseason championships and future formats

So you tell me just what other legislative efforts are available and why the NCAA needs new structure when their reason to exist, amateurism, is no longer viable.

What I see is your stretch to cover a feeble attempt at circumventing the SCOTUS and apparently the Alston attorneys saw it the same way!

Division is coming and the alliance is merely a major symptom.

Your position is that the phrase "Future structure of the NCAA" is an implicit endorsement of the NCAA, and that the phrase "Federal legislative efforts", with no specificity, must mean a law to limit NIL and school payments to athletes. (Also, AFAIK, no matter what law anyone wants, asking congress to pass a law is not forbidden by any court and couldn't be.)

My position is that we don't have enough information yet to do anything more than make wild guesses about what those phrases mean. So we will have to agree to disagree.