Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#106,027
#106,027
DD4ME said:
If they did fix the prices it would not be long before any number of student athletes sued and likely won.
Click to expand...
It seems a little more complicated than that, based on the NCAA's defense. The Sherman Act leaves leeway for price/wage-fixing, giving exemptions for the common good of the nation. NCAA is not denying that they are wage-fixing. They're just claiming that it's for the public good.

That's why the SCOTUS' opinion is so important. They basically said, "We're not convince, and you need to prove that. Also, prove it to Congress because we're not the ones to give it to you. We'll apply the law."
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC, Volunteer821 and DD4ME
#106,029
#106,029
DD4ME said:
Click to expand...

"The NCAA waits until page 16 — two-thirds of the way into its brief — before it defends the NIL-recruiting ban on the merits. And even then, the NCAA defends a world that doesn’t exist," Skrmetti said in the response.

"It says it must 'prohibi[t] NIL compensation' to protect amateurism, competition, and athletes. But NIL compensation is allowed now. The question is not whether college athletes can get paid for their name, image, and likeness. The question is whether the NCAA can make them get paid an artificially depressed amount by depriving them of crucial information. The NCAA has no defense of that practice."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigSteve09, captainfalcon777, 85SugarVol and 20 others
#106,033
#106,033
Orange_Crush said:
It seems a little more complicated than that, based on the NCAA's defense. The Sherman Act leaves leeway for price/wage-fixing, giving exemptions for the common good of the nation. NCAA is not denying that they are wage-fixing. They're just claiming that it's for the public good.

That's why the SCOTUS' opinion is so important. They basically said, "We're not convince, and you need to prove that. Also, prove it to Congress because we're not the ones to give it to you. We'll apply the law."
Click to expand...
I see no serious court willing to fix an athlete's pay. It does not resonate with sensibilities on either side of the isle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Orange_Crush, volsagain and 1 other person
#106,034
#106,034
Orange_Crush said:
TLDR: NCAA is screwed. With this lawsuit, they are forced into the street at high noon with no bullets, and a huge target painted on their belly.


This is odd, as the NCAA is literally and transparently trying to use the same less stringent test to defend their system that the SCOTUS struck down.



The NCAA says that, in order for them to provide the product, it must be amateur, and they need the right to collude to artificially suppress NIL and salary markets. The SCOTUS said, "I don't think so."

In this lawsuit, they've repeated the same, if perhaps in different verbiage.

Also, the NCAA seems to be relying on amateurism as a core fabric of culture, which the last SCOTUS ruling seems to have spoken to. Basically, they said that that's an important conversation, but not one the SCOTUS needs to resolve. The SCOTUS' job is to enforce legislature. (This after telling the NCAA to make their argument to Congress if they want immunity from anti-trust laws.)



Further, Kavanaugh, in a parallel opinion, basically indicated that the NCAA should see the court's legal attitude on this limited NIL debate as the framework to expect on any future NIL and salary issues.
Click to expand...
I could see Scotus agreeing with NCAA on part of not paying athletes as an inducement. But that they havent enforced their rules evenly, or, consistently.

It will def be interesting. TN will need more help.
 
#106,036
#106,036
Jackcrevol said:
I could see Scotus agreeing with NCAA on part of not paying athletes as an inducement. But that they havent enforced their rules evenly, or, consistently.

It will def be interesting. TN will need more help.
Click to expand...
How would you ever separate it though? Collectives would only deploy middle men to make their pitch. The pitch will still be there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol and Glitch
#106,045
#106,045
VOL608 said:
What’s worse…betting on games or juicing yourself up to increase your stats? I’m going with juicing all day. That’s actual cheating.
Click to expand...
i don’t have a problem with either one unless it is 100% proven someone was fixing games…. As for steriods…. it seems disingenuous to me that MLB knew they were using and hyped all of these record breaking events.

It sort of reminds me of the NFL claiming to want player safety while showing video after video of players being knocked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC and DD4ME
#106,046
#106,046
peaygolf said:
Very random, but............

Thinking about some of the UT/UK basketball games I've been to made me think about Stokley Athletic Center

I miss that place...........

View attachment 617646
Click to expand...
Anyone remember seeing Mears send out Rodney Woods (maybe 6’ tall) to jump center against one of KY’s twin towers to begin the game? He loved the “mind game”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Scvol7906, OrangenSC and 2 others
#106,048
#106,048
TheRain said:
"The NCAA waits until page 16 — two-thirds of the way into its brief — before it defends the NIL-recruiting ban on the merits. And even then, the NCAA defends a world that doesn’t exist," Skrmetti said in the response.

"It says it must 'prohibi[t] NIL compensation' to protect amateurism, competition, and athletes. But NIL compensation is allowed now. The question is not whether college athletes can get paid for their name, image, and likeness. The question is whether the NCAA can make them get paid an artificially depressed amount by depriving them of crucial information. The NCAA has no defense of that practice."
Click to expand...
I swear, the NCAA is screwing this up on purpose. No other way to explain their incompetence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Scvol7906, UTProf and 13 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top