Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#106,007
#106,007
Devo182 said:
Not faith. I doubt the SEC office is on the up and up across the board. Would say that about every university too. Any million/billion dollar organization is a good opp for corruption.

Just talking reality of what can be proven. The onus is on you.

You're literally passing on a million dollar book deal here. Just compile your vast evidence and present it. Right?

Take down a billion dollar organization and Sankey in the meantime. Why would you forego millions when you have all the evidence right in front of you?


Fwiw you have many friends in this territory, especially UK fans. They have an entire website dedicated to exposing how SEC basketball refs are against them. Lol.
Click to expand...
If you need solid evidence, you can't find it, because those programs don't get investigated to find that evidence. The NCAA has never investigated Bama in the modern era. You have to be pretty (embarrassingly) naive to believe they've not paid $100's of thousands of dollars to bring in players. Then you have NC scandal that evidently was not under their jurisdiction whereas the Penn State atrocities were.

Then you have the Kansas basketball/Bill Self stuff where they had him on tape buying players and absolutely zero ramifications.

Then you have the Vols that are continually targeted, for

For you believe there's no corruption takes monumental leap of faith. I can't believe you're this dumb so I choose to believe you're just stubborn to die on this hill.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, VolsDoc81TX, BigSteve09 and 15 others
#106,013
#106,013
Orange_Crush said:
OK... Sorry for the novels. I think I understand the NCAA's brazenness a little better.

The district court decision that SCOTUS ruled on left the door open under Sherman Act, that it may be permissible to limit or refuse athlete salaries. But it opened the floodgates of NIL. The NCAA is arguing in its current response that allowing unlimited NIL and inducements will make it impossible for them to refuse salaries, so NIL needs to be limited.

So, whereas the previous district suit was not about salaries, this one will become about salaries, or it will make a useful distinction between NIL and salaries. It will probably go to SCOTUS, who have signaled that the question of salaries will likely go the way of NIL...i.e. rules being struck down.
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, this would be good for us?

BTW - lots of commentary on this, your takes seem to be the most useful and easy to understand for me. Appreciate the effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, Brillovol, Scvol7906 and 9 others
#106,016
#106,016
Orange_Crush said:
Interesting pun. Reading the SCOTUS opinion on NIL, in giving the history of college athletics. The first college athletic match ion history was a boat race.
Click to expand...
The issue as I see it is the courts and states have already agreed athletes have the right to be paid. You cannot allow that and also allow the NCAA to limit it. They are not compatible arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodlawn VOL and SweetasSoda
#106,018
#106,018
Orange_Crush said:
OK... Sorry for the novels. I think I understand the NCAA's brazenness a little better.

The district court decision that SCOTUS ruled on left the door open under Sherman Act, that it may be permissible to limit or refuse athlete salaries. But it opened the floodgates of NIL. The NCAA is arguing in its current response that allowing unlimited NIL and inducements will make it impossible for them to refuse salaries, so NIL needs to be limited.

So, whereas the previous district suit was not about salaries, this one will become about salaries, or it will make a useful distinction between NIL and salaries. It will probably go to SCOTUS, who have signaled that the question of salaries will likely go the way of NIL...i.e. rules being struck down.
Click to expand...
I know the AA just wants more control over the athletes, like they used to have. However, as soon as the SCOTUS ruled that college athletes were free to profit off of their own NIL the AA lost all their power over that space. If the AA had been prepared with a reasonable set of rules for the member institutions to implement across the board once the pandoras box of NIL was opened then they may have a leg to stand on at this point. They didn't, though, and are now trying to arbitrarily and retroactively enforce rules that also violate the student athletes' rights to profit off of their own NIL. While I agree there needs to be some standardization and framework around the NIL space, what the AA is arguing is just trying to go back to the "Good ole days" when they could have more control and power.

Not directed at you, @Orange_Crush. Just a general rant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Brillovol, Scvol7906 and 4 others
#106,021
#106,021
Orange_Crush said:
The federal district court found that price-fixing may actually be a benefit/need to distinguish college athletics from professional so may be needed to fill consumer demand.



Seems like this is the thread of hope the NCAA is clinging to in their current defense. However, the SCOTUS opinion is referencing this (in part, perhaps) on what it did not rule on, because the athletes did not appeal this.



(This seems to be something that Kavanaugh was alluding to when he opined that the NCAA is not above the law, and further suits are likely to meet this one's end.)

IOW... The NCAA seems to be clinging to this point, where the SCOTUS seems to have removes some hope on this point. And again, the viewership of NCAAF over the previous three years is a study in undermining the argument, imo.
Click to expand...
If they did fix the prices it would not be long before any number of student athletes sued and likely won.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Scvol7906, OrangenSC and 3 others
#106,022
#106,022
rjd970 said:
If I understand correctly, this would be good for us?

BTW - lots of commentary on this, your takes seem to be the most useful and easy to understand for me. Appreciate the effort.
Click to expand...
I think it's to our benefit, and I suspect it'll go to the SCOTUS, and NIL/Salary rules will be struck down--just not completely for the reason I initially thought.

From reading summaries, and about the 1st third of the SCOTUS major opinion so far, it boils down to this:

In their last district suit, the NCAA argued that they shouldn't be held to Sherman Act standards because they are a special interest to the US public. (My description, not theirs.) The SAs that brought that suit didn't press that issue in the appeal, so the SCOTUS didn't rule on that in the appeal suit.

That seems to be the gray area where the NCAA is living in their current response--really because that's apparently the only area they have to argue.

However, just because the SCOTUS refused to rule on that doesn't mean:

1- That the matter is settled and the NCAA gets an exemption, or
2- That the SCOTUS refused to speak on it.

The SCOTUS wrote that the NCAA doesn't at a glance meet the requirements for an exemption, so they have work to do if they want to meet it. They also wrote that it isn't the court's job to give them that exemption, so they should go to Congress for it. (Keep in mind, that opinion is three years old. They still haven't gone to Congress, and they are still arguing as though they have (or should have)that exemption.)

I suspect they will be struck down, not for common sense human rights reasons that I assumed. But because the court will refuse to grant them the exemption, so they will be held to the standard of the Sherman Act as writen

The NCAA has already admitted to being a price-setting monopsony that limites SA's wages and NIL valuations. Without that exemption, they are self-admitted toast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Strateegery, Brillovol and 6 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top