Josh Pate Says It (The College Sports Crisis)

[tlowe]

Tell me how many life altering sports accidents there are per year vs how many people die in car accidents per year coming to/from work. I’ll wait. You won’t like the numbers when you google that one. You really thought you did something there. People take “risks” everyday to provide for their family and over 99% of them will never have the ability to make the money these kids have the opportunity to. Miners, riggers, drivers, take risks everyday and aren’t compensated heavily for the “what ifs”.

It’s unfortunate if anyone gets hurt doing anything in life, inky included. Sorry if that doesn’t make me think they deserve millions at risk of blowing out a knee all while getting free education, housing, food, and the best resources.

That's the reason they write auto insurance for the loss . Also there is a comparable losss that is also deemed a risk and has also a history of insurance companies underwriting the loss...see Lloyd's of London and Peyton Manning. Most can not afford to purchase this insurance and instead are receiving a comparable amount to compensate them for the risk.. Just like Manning would have received if he had been crippled.

 

[ochocinco]

So far in the NIL revolution the most ridiculous things to me is the Arkansas law making NIL income exempt from state taxes. Everyone in the state has to pay taxes to fund things like state colleges and universities except for the guys playing sports at those schools. Absolutely ridiculous that was signed into law.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

So far in the NIL revolution the most ridiculous things to me is the Arkansas law making NIL income exempt from state taxes. Everyone in the state has to pay taxes to fund things like state colleges and universities except for the guys playing sports at those schools. Absolutely ridiculous that was signed into law.

That only applies to direct NIL from the school which won't even exist until the House settlement is court approved. It doesn't apply to outside NIL.

Arkansas Governor signs transformative NIL bill into law

.

www.on3.com

 

[Peradox1K]

That's ludicrous. I proved my point with evidence and reason. The couple of people arguing with me did do that.

Example - using a single guy's opinion as if it were fact. (Pate). It's not.

Example - pate's false claim that there are only 3 options going forward. I showed there are at least 2 others.

Example - claiming that a law that applies to voluntary associations (think Kiwanis, Rotary, FFA, etc) applies to public universities. It doesn't. Public universities clearly are not "voluntary association".

Example - the false claim that college sports are "done". They aren't. They are better than ever by any objective measure. Attended xe. Viewership. Money. Associated sales.
There's not a shred of objective that says otherwise.

Your opinion of what happened is ludicrously incongruent with the facts

It is. Collegiate sports are going to be ruined (or already are) by players holding out for money rather than focus on education or trying to make it to the pros.
Also: Your whole argument has been ludicrous! Want a definition?


lu·di·crous

adjective

1. so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.
   

 

[Peradox1K]

It is. Collegiate sports are going to be ruined (or already are) by players holding out for money rather than focus on education or trying to make it to the pros.
Also: Your whole argument has been ludicrous? Want a definition?


lu·di·crous

adjective

1. so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.
   

Isn't that we are thinking right now, yall?
Obviously trust a man who probably has no legal experience, and believes players should be making millions of dollars on top of free education, board, food, and tutors.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

It is. Collegiate sports are going to be ruined (or already are) by players holding out for money rather than focus on education or trying to make it to the pros.
Also: Your whole argument has been ludicrous! Want a definition?


lu·di·crous

adjective

1. so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.

Repeating that canard ad nauseum does magically make it "not a canard".

If you can't keep up, just say so.

Funny how college sports - and especially football - are more successful than ever by every objective measure. That debunks your claims.

Get used to it or quit watching. It's not going back to the old exploitation model you like.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Isn't that we are thinking right now, yall?
Obviously trust a man who probably has no legal experience, and believes players should be making millions of dollars on top of free education, board, food, and tutors.

Trust the courts that have ruled in favor of the athletes and against the NCAA in every recent case related to their illegal rules.

Transfers. (Ohio vs NCAA) NIL. (NCAA vs Alston, Tennessee vs NCAA). Non NCAA eligibility. (Pavia vs NCAA). Revenue sharing (House vs NCAA). Fair market value. (NCAA vs Alston, again)

Anyone who can read and who has the ability to discern knows that the NCAA rules violated state and federal laws, and were blatant exploitation.

It's not up to you to decide how much money other people can make.

 

[Peradox1K]

Trust the courts that have ruled in favor of the athletes and against the NCAA in every recent case related to their illegal rules.

Transfers. (Ohio vs NCAA) NIL. (NCAA vs Alston, Tennessee vs NCAA). Non NCAA eligibility. (Pavia vs NCAA). Revenue sharing (House vs NCAA). Fair market value. (NCAA vs Alston, again)

Anyone who can read and who has the ability to discern knows that the NCAA rules violated state and federal laws, and were blatant exploitation.

It's not up to you to decide how much money other people can make.

Obviously. I apologize for stating my opinion on the matter and disagreeing to the fact that college athletes need to be paid despite the fact they receive something not a lot of people can afford. I apologize for being so selfish and that was just really out of turn of me, huh?

Kick rocks.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Obviously. I apologize for stating my opinion on the matter and disagreeing to the fact that college athletes need to be paid despite the fact they receive something not a lot of people can afford. I apologize for being so selfish and that was just really out of turn of me, huh?

Kick rocks.

It's out of touch, and ignores the realities of federal law, court decisions, and court settlements. It's also supportive if exploitation.

Pound sand.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

So stopping athlete exploitation was somehow bad? That's an appalling position.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Stopping athlete exploitation was GREAT!

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

They can carve out an exemption for college atheletics, it does have to be applicable across the board. I have a law degree, I have practiced for 20 years, they carve out exemptions to things ALL the time, they will just make a safe harbor exemption for the NCAA or the new governing body that provides that as long as X percentage is shared with athletes, they can make enforceable rules regarding NIL, transfers, etc. Nothing revolutionary about the fix.

Also, there are currently probably 8 bills in a Congressional committee to change the anti-trust laws, so it's a very real possibility. I hate that it will shut down your player handling/agency business, because I otherwise (other than this subject) like you, but sacrifices have to be made, lol.

If the ATE happens, get ready for the other things that go with it.

Professional status for the athletes.
Either employees or contractors.

Unionization and collective bargaining.
Costs driving the non revenue sports out of existence.

Strikes and holdouts.

A 131 team draft instead of recruiting.

The military academies leaving FBS (and maybe football) because they can't meet the employee/contractor/draft model.

Involuntary trades.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

As for the ATE legislative chances, look around. Congress can't even get one of them out of committee. They have much bigger fish to fry.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

If the ATE happens, get ready for the other things that go with it.

Professional status for the athletes.
Either employees or contractors.

Unionization and collective bargaining.
Costs driving the non revenue sports out of existence.

Strikes and holdouts.

A 131 team draft instead of recruiting.

The military academies leaving FBS (and maybe football) because they can't meet the employee/contractor/draft model.

Involuntary trades.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

As for the ATE legislative chances, look around. Congress can't even get one of them out of committee. They have much bigger fish to fry.

That's where we are certainly heading if there is NOT an anti-trust exemption passed. Congress can fashion an anti-trust exemption in nearly any manner it wants, Antitrust is Congress's law. They weren't required to pass it to start with, so they can change it if they want. There are a number of different approaches taken in the various bills that have been proposed.

 

[Peradox1K]

It's out of touch, and ignores the realities of federal law, court decisions, and court settlements. It's also supportive if exploitation.

Pound sand.

I believe that you said it's exploiting to offer kids 100K scholarships and the ability to play sports on national TV, correct?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I believe that you said it's exploiting to offer kids 100K scholarships and the ability to play sports on national TV, correct?

It absolutely is exploitation. The schools and the coaches make millions upon millions of dollars on their backs. The NCAA used to suspend them for accepting a free meal. That is indeed exploitation.

The Supreme e Court agrees with me, 9-0.

"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

The NCAA model was not just exploitation. It was blatantly against the law. Just because you were used to it doesn't make it magically not exploitation.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

"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

Again, I am not writing this for you but for other people you may otherwise mislead. If you just look at the section of Kavanaugh's concurrence that you have quoted, in bold what he is saying is that the NCAA's prior business model violated antitrust law. That's the law they are not above. Again, that's his concurrence, which is Kavanaugh speaking for himself.

In the 9-0 SCOTUS opinion (that Kavanaugh joined, i.e. agreed with), as I have pointed out to you numerous times before in response to you quoting this section, the whole Court (i.e. every SCOTUS justice) signed off on the following:

"The “orderly way” to temper that Act's policy of competition is “by legislation and not by court decision.” Flood, 407 U.S. at 279, 92 S.Ct. 2099. The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 689, 98 S.Ct. 1355. Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. §§ 291–292 (agricultural cooperatives); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1804 (newspaper joint operating agreements). But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone—“competition is the best method of allocating resources” in the Nation's economy. National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 695, 98 S.Ct. 1355."

Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 96, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2160, 210 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2021)

Congress could even re-install the old NCAA model if they wanted to, all they would have to do is fashion an anti-trust exemption to do so. Practically, no anti-trust exemption will pass Congress that does not include revenue sharing (nor should it), but anti-trust is Congress's law, they can change it largely as they see fit. SCOTUS itself said so, as can be seen above.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Again, I am not writing this for you but for other people you may otherwise mislead. If you just look at the section of Kavanaugh's concurrence that you have quoted, in bold what he is saying is that the NCAA's prior business model violated antitrust law. That's the law they are not above. Again, that's his concurrence, which is Kavanaugh speaking for himself.

In the 9-0 SCOTUS opinion (that Kavanaugh joined, i.e. agreed with), as I have pointed out to you numerous times before in response to you quoting this section, the whole Court (i.e. every SCOTUS justice) signed off on the following:

"The “orderly way” to temper that Act's policy of competition is “by legislation and not by court decision.” Flood, 407 U.S. at 279, 92 S.Ct. 2099. The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 689, 98 S.Ct. 1355. Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. §§ 291–292 (agricultural cooperatives); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1804 (newspaper joint operating agreements). But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone—“competition is the best method of allocating resources” in the Nation's economy. National Soc. of Professional Engineers, 435 U.S. at 695, 98 S.Ct. 1355."

Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 96, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2160, 210 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2021)

Congress could even re-install the old NCAA model if they wanted to, all they would have to do is fashion an anti-trust exemption to do so. Practically, no anti-trust exemption will pass Congress that does not include revenue sharing (nor should it), but anti-trust is Congress's law, they can change it largely as they see fit. SCOTUS itself said so, as can be seen above.

Congress can't even get a bill to do that out of committee.

They have way bigger fish to fry.
Congress also can't change the court ruling under existing law.

Any antitrust exe Orion they might grant will carry tons of baggage with it.

Title IX issues, for one thing.

The potential for conflict with the Civil Right Act with another. Disparate impact on minorities.

Most importantly, Congress isn't going to eliminate the Sherman Antitrust Act. That globally affects all business in the USA. NCAA money is a drop in that bucket. They may grant a partial antitrust exe Orion, but again, that carries baggage that the NCAA hates worse than they do the current situation.

I've already listed several of those things above.

I'm not holding my breath, especially with the House case settlement delayed again, due to legal challenges to the NIL clause and the proposed clearinghouse.

 

[Peradox1K]

It absolutely is exploitation. The schools and the coaches make millions upon millions of dollars on their backs. The NCAA used to suspend them for accepting a free meal. That is indeed exploitation.

The Supreme e Court agrees with me, 9-0.

"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

The NCAA model was not just exploitation. It was blatantly against the law. Just because you were used to it doesn't make it magically not exploitation.

I don't care how many times you restate the same thing. I have never, ever (and I teach middle school, by the way) heard that many ways to restate the same thing and then claim giving kids free education and a spot on national TV is exploiting them.

 

[Peradox1K]

Athlete exploitation? I’m assuming you’re referring to the athletes receiving free education, healthcare, top line nutrition, top line resources, and the platform to get to the next level and make millions? Sounds terrible. Sign me up.

That's what I've been saying!

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

That's what I've been saying!

The Supreme Court says it was exploitation and a federal law violation. Please learn the concept of fair market value.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I don't care how many times you restate the same thing. I have never, ever (and I teach middle school, by the way) heard that many ways to restate the same thing and then claim giving kids free education and a spot on national TV is exploiting them.

I don't care how many times you repeat that canard. Those things are t a drop in the bucket if fair market value. Ergo, by definition, the NCAA, schools, and coaches profiting from it is the textbook definition of exploitation.

Here is that definition:
.
"The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work."

That is EXACTLY what the old NCAA rules did, no matter how much you are in denial of it.

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Peradox1K]

I don't care how many times you repeat that canard. Those things are t a drop in the bucket if fair market value. Ergo, by definition, the NCAA, schools, and coaches profiting from it is the textbook definition of exploitation.

Here is that definition:
.
"The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work."

That is EXACTLY what the old NCAA rules did, no matter how much you are in denial of it.

Google Search

www.google.com

Yeah, yeah, but you need to tell me something: How is it exploiting kids to give them scholarships and play on TV? Don't come at me with Supreme Court rulings and all that, I don't give a rat's ass

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Yeah, yeah, but you need to tell me something: How is it exploiting kids to give them scholarships and play on TV? Don't come at me with Supreme Court rulings and all that, I don't give a rat's ass

It's not fair market value. By definition that is exploitation. You really lack the ability to discern, don't you? It's not that you don't understand exploitation. It's that you LOVE it

 

[Peradox1K]

So you want to keep exploiting college athletes, violate the law, and violate Supreme Court rulings fit your own entertainment and inability to stay current? That is appalling, disgusting, and exemplifies exploitation.

I even gave you the dictionary definition.
The fact that you're like a kid with echolalia repeating the same meaningless words over and over isn't a good look for you.

Are you still mad that President Lincoln freed the slaves, given your love for exploitation and your refusal to admit what it actually is?

Exploitation is giving away thousands of dollars and being on TV. You heard it here first, folks!
Also no, as a black man I'm not really mad about that.

 

[Peradox1K]

I don't care how many times you repeat that canard. Those things are t a drop in the bucket if fair market value. Ergo, by definition, the NCAA, schools, and coaches profiting from it is the textbook definition of exploitation.

Here is that definition:
.
"The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work."

That is EXACTLY what the old NCAA rules did, no matter how much you are in denial of it.

Google Search

www.google.com

Again, how in the HELL is it treating kids unfairly when you pay for their education? AND give them Saturday nights all to themselves?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Again, how in the HELL is it treating kids unfairly when you pay for their education? AND give them Saturday nights all to themselves?

Obviously reality and facts are beyond your limited ability to discern.

You obviously are clueless about fair market value and you admitted that you don't care about the law or Supreme Court decisions.

Your inability to grasp basic facts, including the dictionary definition of exploitation, is no es problem but yours.

The exploitation you long for is long gone, and no matter what happens, it's not coming back.

That is a VERY good thing.