Josh Pate Says It (The College Sports Crisis)

#126
#126
unfrozencvmanvol said:
He also literally knows nothing about what he is talking about in reference to this topic. I'm an attorney and am mostly involved in the healthcare provider/civil defense area, and while I am not an anti-trust specialist I have some knowledge of it from representing hospital and nursing home systems, etc., and he is in these threads telling people stuff that is flat wrong most of the time.
Click to expand...
wrong again, Skippy. You can't cite a single instance on which I have not been factual here. That's why you switched to personal attacks and deflection. Your fantasies are still lying to you.

The proof? Not a single it of the doom and gloom you tout has actually occurred.

Now crawl back in your hole with the others that line exploiting young people for their own entertainment.
 
#129
#129
unfrozencvmanvol said:
He also literally knows nothing about what he is talking about in reference to this topic. I'm an attorney and am mostly involved in the healthcare provider/civil defense area, and while I am not an anti-trust specialist I have some knowledge of it from representing hospital and nursing home systems, etc., and he is in these threads telling people stuff that is flat wrong most of the time.
Click to expand...
You keep claiming that I'm wrong, yet you can't cite a single specific. That makes the iur claims bogus.

Now tell me what you know about

Alaton vs NCAA
Ohio vs NCAA
Tennessee vs NCAA
Bush vs NCAA
House vs NCAA
The legal challenges to the prioosed House settlement
2024 college sports State fe ce
2024 college sports TV viewership
2024 college sports streaming viewership
2024 college sports revenue

I'll pop more popcorn and continue waiting.
Given the zero pertinent facts you've posted here, I'm looking at a sizes me increase in my popcorn budget.
 
#130
#130
S.C. OrangeMan said:
wrong again, Skippy. You can't cite a single instance on which I have not been factual here. That's why you switched to personal attacks and deflection. Your fantasies are still lying to you.

The proof? Not a single it of the doom and gloom you tout has actually occurred.

Now crawl back in your hole with the others that line exploiting young people for their own entertainment.
Click to expand...
Again, just a bad faith response on your part, you know you've been caught talking out of school multiple times.
 
#131
#131
S.C. OrangeMan said:
You keep claiming that I'm wrong, yet you can't cite a single specific. That makes the iur claims bogus.

Now tell me what you know about

Alaton vs NCAA
Ohio vs NCAA
Tennessee vs NCAA
Bush vs NCAA
House vs NCAA
The legal challenges to the prioosed House settlement
2024 college sports State fe ce
2024 college sports TV viewership
2024 college sports streaming viewership
2024 college sports revenue

I'll pop more popcorn and continue waiting.
Given the zero pertinent facts you've posted here, I'm looking at a sizes me increase in my popcorn budget.
Click to expand...
yawn1.gif
 
#134
#134
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, just a bad faith response on your part, you know you've been caught talking out of school multiple times.
Click to expand...

So you don't really know anything about either the legal background of the current college sports situation vis a vis the NCAA. Again, you can't cite a single example.

So you try more deflection.
As expected.
It's not working for you.

You're like a 3 year old screaming and stamping your feet because you can't get your way.

I'll add another item to the list of things you factually know nothing about.

Pavia vs NCAA.

Now back to your regularly scheduled online love for exploiting college athletes...
 
#136
#136
unfrozencvmanvol said:
You made a fool out of yourself in our entire conversation in this thread, before these two posts:

View attachment 737814View attachment 737815
Click to expand...
Funny how those things are not pertinent.
You're the one making a fool out of yourself.

See the 9-0 NCAA vs Alston Supreme Court decision that says that you're wrong.

They tuned that the entire NCAA athletic model is illegal, specifically because it is based on intentionally not providing fair market value to the athletes.

...as I already told you.

If you want to see the one making a fool of himself, stare into a mirror.

But, by all means, keep doubling down on your ignorance of that list of federal cases I mentioned above.

It's funny how what you want isn't happening.
What I advocate here either has already occurred. Facts.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate
Under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

"The NCAA is not above the law."

SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring opinion
NCAA vs Alston
 
#137
#137
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Funny how those things are not pertinent.
You're the one making a fool out of yourself.

See the 9-0 NCAA vs Alston Supreme Court decision that says that you're wrong.

They tuned that the entire NCAA athletic model is illegal, specifically because it is based on intentionally not providing fair market value to the athletes.

...as I already told you.

If you want to see the one making a fool of himself, stare into a mirror.

But, by all means, keep doubling down on your ignorance of that list of federal cases I mentioned above.

It's funny how what you want isn't happening.
What I advocate here either has already occurred. Facts.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate
Under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

"The NCAA is not above the law."

SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring opinion
NCAA vs Alston
Click to expand...
You are a clown.
 
#138
#138
unfrozencvmanvol said:
You made a fool out of yourself in our entire conversation in this thread, before these two posts:

View attachment 737814View attachment 737815
Click to expand...
Two more ways that you are wrong.

1. You are citing a Code of Federal Regulations to claim that Congress can set fair market value. It is inherently impossible for Congress to do that. Only the market itself and set market value.

Congress can't set that value. They can only interfere with it.

2. You also cited voluntary associations as having the ability to determine their own rules. That's a non sequitur here, because the athletes are not members of a voluntary association like Kiwanis, Lions Club, Rotary, or Zonta. They are not members of professional societies like the AMA, ABA, etc.

They are individuals who play sports and generate revenue for colleges and universities. Ergo, nothing you posted about voluntary associations is pertinent. If it were, the lawyers on all those cases I listed would have brought that up as an affirmative defense. They didn't bring it up at all, because, unlike you, they were knowledgeable enough to understand that it was t get some and that the judges would have laughed them out of court.
 
#139
#139
Proposed Team name change being considered. Changing from the Tennessee Volunteers to the "Spyre Mercenaries" Replacing the Power T with "$$G" (Spyre Sports Group)on the helmet..... Nickename changing from the "Vols" to the "Mercs" ... new colors yet to be determined.
 
#140
#140
S.C. OrangeMan said:
1. You are citing a Code of Federal Regulations to claim that Congress can set fair market value. It is inherently impossible for Congress to do that. Only the market itself and set market value.

Congress can't set that value. They can only interfere with it.
Click to expand...
I have told you all of this before and arguing with you is pointless because you don't operate in good faith but for the benefit of others:

You were maintaining, as can clearly be see in this thread, that Congress cannot regulate NIL or the fair market value of any NIL deal.

I told you they absolutely can regulate NIL and the fair market value of an NIL deal if they decide to do so. They already do so in other areas of the economy (and have been doing so for decades). As demonstrated by the regulation I cited regarding the Stark law (which governs financial relationships between hospitals and physicians, among other things), numerous Stark law exceptions already provide that as condition of qualifying for an exemption to the Stark law, a transaction between a physician and a hospital must be fair market value. The Anti-Kickback law is the criminal law that works in tandem with the Stark law and has similar exemptions. The federal government, not irregularly PUTS PEOPLE IN PRISON and fines violators millions of dollars when they determine Stark/ACB have been violated, i.e. when they determine that a transaction between a hospital and a doctor was NOT fair market value. They could without any doubt whatsoever do the same in the NIL context. They could require that any NIL arrangement be a fair market value, arms length transaction/not a sham pay for play arrangement, and if they determined that a deal wasn't FMV, they could without a doubt, penalize the perpetrators. It's settled law. You don't know what you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Original Fade, tbh and Voltopia
#141
#141
S.C. OrangeMan said:
2. You also cited voluntary associations as having the ability to determine their own rules. That's a non sequitur here, because the athletes are not members of a voluntary association like Kiwanis, Lions Club, Rotary, or Zonta. They are not members of professional societies like the AMA, ABA, etc.

They are individuals who play sports and generate revenue for colleges and universities. Ergo, nothing you posted about voluntary associations is pertinent. If it were, the lawyers on all those cases I listed would have brought that up as an affirmative defense. They didn't bring it up at all, because, unlike you, they were knowledgeable enough to understand that it was t get some and that the judges would have laughed them out of court.
Click to expand...
Again, I have told you this before, and arguing with you is pointless because you don't operate in good faith, but for the benefit of others: voluntary association is not pertinent right now, because the NCAA has essentially been determined to be a monopoly in violation of anti-trust, that's roadblock number one. If the NCAA is a monopoly, it does not matter whether participation is voluntary or not (because effectively there is only one game in town).

IF Congress grants an exemption to anti-trust for college sports, the monopoly/anti-trust problem is no more. AT THAT POINT, if you don't want to be subject to college sports rules, then you don't have to play, and if you do choose to play, you have to abide by the rules. This is true in numerous other aspects of American life, and if the players can't argue an anti-trust violation, it'll work just like it does in other areas and just like it did in CFB before. But no, arguing that something is "voluntary" is not a defense if that something is a monopoly, however if Congress grants an exemption, it becomes pertinent again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rafe, tbh and Voltopia
#142
#142
GulfCoasterVol said:
Proposed Team name change being considered. Changing from the Tennessee Volunteers to the "Spyre Mercenaries" Replacing the Power T with "$$G" (Spyre Sports Group)on the helmet..... Nickename changing from the "Vols" to the "Mercs" ... new colors yet to be determined.
Click to expand...
You aren't far off. Vols, Inc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K and GulfCoasterVol
#143
#143
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, I have told you this before, and arguing with you is pointless because you don't operate in good faith, but for the benefit of others: voluntary association is not pertinent right now, because the NCAA has essentially been determined to be a monopoly in violation of anti-trust, that's roadblock number one. If the NCAA is a monopoly, it does not matter whether participation is voluntary or not (because effectively there is only one game in town).

IF Congress grants an exemption to anti-trust for college sports, the monopoly/anti-trust problem is no more. AT THAT POINT, if you don't want to be subject to college sports rules, then you don't have to play, and if you do choose to play, you have to abide by the rules. This is true in numerous other aspects of American life, and if the players can't argue an anti-trust violation, it'll work just like it does in other areas and just like it did in CFB before. But no, arguing that something is "voluntary" is not a defense if that something is a monopoly, however if Congress grants an exemption, it becomes pertinent again.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Dear me. Now you've gone and done it. You're going to get seriously copy/pasted at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and unfrozencvmanvol
#144
#144
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, I have told you this before, and arguing with you is pointless because you don't operate in good faith, but for the benefit of others: voluntary association is not pertinent right now, because the NCAA has essentially been determined to be a monopoly in violation of anti-trust, that's roadblock number one. If the NCAA is a monopoly, it does not matter whether participation is voluntary or not (because effectively there is only one game in town).

IF Congress grants an exemption to anti-trust for college sports, the monopoly/anti-trust problem is no more. AT THAT POINT, if you don't want to be subject to college sports rules, then you don't have to play, and if you do choose to play, you have to abide by the rules. This is true in numerous other aspects of American life, and if the players can't argue an anti-trust violation, it'll work just like it does in other areas and just like it did in CFB before. But no, arguing that something is "voluntary" is not a defense if that something is a monopoly, however if Congress grants an exemption, it becomes pertinent again.
Click to expand...
You operate based on B.S. unlike you, I actually cite pertinent laws and court decisions. Unlike you, I actually pay attention to the court decisions that affect the current situation.

Unlike you, I don't act like I supported personal opinion is fact. Unlike you, I don't pretend that speculation is fact.

Your fantasies are still lying to you.
 
#145
#145
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, I have told you this before, and arguing with you is pointless because you don't operate in good faith, but for the benefit of others: voluntary association is not pertinent right now, because the NCAA has essentially been determined to be a monopoly in violation of anti-trust, that's roadblock number one. If the NCAA is a monopoly, it does not matter whether participation is voluntary or not (because effectively there is only one game in town).

IF Congress grants an exemption to anti-trust for college sports, the monopoly/anti-trust problem is no more. AT THAT POINT, if you don't want to be subject to college sports rules, then you don't have to play, and if you do choose to play, you have to abide by the rules. This is true in numerous other aspects of American life, and if the players can't argue an anti-trust violation, it'll work just like it does in other areas and just like it did in CFB before. But no, arguing that something is "voluntary" is not a defense if that something is a monopoly, however if Congress grants an exemption, it becomes pertinent again.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, Skippy. I ONLY Operate in good faith. I also tell you why. I don't cite bogus, non pertinent things like you do. Ergo, you're projecting your own bad faith. YCMTSU
 
#146
#146
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, I have told you this before, and arguing with you is pointless because you don't operate in good faith, but for the benefit of others: voluntary association is not pertinent right now, because the NCAA has essentially been determined to be a monopoly in violation of anti-trust, that's roadblock number one. If the NCAA is a monopoly, it does not matter whether participation is voluntary or not (because effectively there is only one game in town).

IF Congress grants an exemption to anti-trust for college sports, the monopoly/anti-trust problem is no more. AT THAT POINT, if you don't want to be subject to college sports rules, then you don't have to play, and if you do choose to play, you have to abide by the rules. This is true in numerous other aspects of American life, and if the players can't argue an anti-trust violation, it'll work just like it does in other areas and just like it did in CFB before. But no, arguing that something is "voluntary" is not a defense if that something is a monopoly, however if Congress grants an exemption, it becomes pertinent again.
Click to expand...


You're now changing your story to "if Congress grants an exemption" when I mythbusted your "bogus "voluntary association" Red Herring.

Just another example of that bad faith that you tried to project onto me. FAIL!!!

Go ahead, hold your breath and wait on Congress to give an antitrust exemption to a group with a history of more than a century of law breaking and exploitation.

You'll turn Kentucky blue first.
 
Last edited:
#147
#147
Anytime you have young men, money, greedy handlers and or parents and people that are willing to recruit those people without any guard rails in place and it then becomes a bidding war, what do you expect.
 
#148
#148
Collective action could work in theory. Simply stop consuming the product, and eventually there won’t be ridiculous sums of money flying around. Stop going to games, stop buying merch, and perhaps most importantly, stop watching on TV. Eventually advertisers realize they’re not reaching as many eyeballs, which lowers the value for the tv networks, which lowers the value of schools for the conferences, which lowers the value of players for the schools.

In practice, fans are never going to “divest” from college athletics on a sufficient scale, but the market will correct to some degree as people lose interest. Look at all the people ITT and elsewhere saying they’re over it or would rather watch NFL now.
 
#149
#149
S.C. OrangeMan said:
You're now changing your story to "if Congress grants an exemption" when I mythbusted your "bogus "voluntary association" Red Herring.

Just another example of that bad faith that you tried to project onto me. FAIL!!!

Go ahead, hold your breath and wait on Congress to give an antitrust exemption to a group with a history of more than a century of law breaking and exploitation.

You'll turn Kentucky blue first.
Click to expand...
I have dozens of comments in my comment history on this subject which anyone is free to look through and I have always been consistent on this point because unlike you, I know what I am talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K, The Original Fade and tbh
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top