LSU - It's ABOUT TIME!

#76
#76
BowlBrother85 said:
The NCAA can still restrict recruits/players from being paid directly by their member institutions for athletic-based performance. I'm not angry about anything, but you are talking out of your butt.
Click to expand...

They can't collude and interfere with commerce as a monopoly, it really is that simple.

An individual school could setup their own policy as long as they are not colluding with the other member schools, generally speaking. The problem is with the NCAA and the member schools being a part of that.

There really isn't anything complex about this, you'll eventually get to the bargaining stage.
 
#78
#78
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm not the one so deeply invested in this. You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yet, my predictions of all this have basically come true or are way on its way. I'll take what you said as a compliment. If being wrong is right, I guess I'm wrong.

My predictions are not some work of a genius... I think they were more of duhh. You're just taking longer to figure it out than the normal dummy.
 
#79
#79
LSU-SIU said:
They can't collude and interfere with commerce as a monopoly, it really is that simple.
Click to expand...
They can still restrict their member schools from directly paying players for athletic-based performance. LSU wouldn't have received that notice of allegations if what you are saying is true. You are counting on some form of future litigation as a remedy to LSU's pending problems.
 
#80
#80
BowlBrother85 said:
They can still restrict their member schools from directly paying players for athletic-based performance. LSU wouldn't have received that notice of allegations if what you are saying is true. You are counting on some form of future litigation as a remedy to LSU's pending problems.
Click to expand...

A notice is simply a notice, I can send them a notice. So what? Kansas told them to go fly a kite and that is going on 3 years ago, they got a notice. Everything that has been going on is most just self-imposing and self-reporting. The NCAA really hasn't done anything to anyone in many moons. Its over.

The mistake LSU made was self-reporting and self-imposing penalties for football.

I would just ignore it all.
 
#81
#81
LSU-SIU said:
A notice is simply a notice, I can send them a notice. So what? Kansas told them to go fly a kite and that is going on 3 years ago. Everything that has been going is most just self-imposing and self-reporting.
Click to expand...
We have not yet reached the point where it is legal for schools to directly pay athletes for playing for them. It may reach that point soon... but we are not there yet.
 
#82
#82
BowlBrother85 said:
We have not yet reached the point where it is legal for schools to directly pay athletes for playing for them. It may reach that point soon... but we are not there yet.
Click to expand...

It is 100% legal for Will Wade to pay a player to play. :)
 
#83
#83
LSU-SIU said:
Having that in the contract is evidence of a crime by LSU and the NCAA under federal and state law this has been explained to you several times..
Click to expand...

You've stated it. You have not offered an iota of support for that statement.
 
#85
#85
bamawriter said:
You've stated it. You have not offered an iota of support for that statement.
Click to expand...

The rules are exactly what would be used as evidence in a criminal trial, they're right on their website. What do you think they use as evidence when they go after the other mafia, the garbage collection contracts.

The evidence is right on their website. LOL
 
#88
#88
bamawriter said:
It is legal in that it is not against the law. However, it is against the terms of the contract he signed.
Click to expand...

Those terms are a violation of the sherman act, those restrictions can't exist as a matter of law. LSU could said that Wade couldn't pay players, but as soon as you have the NCAA restricting with LSU... its a clear violation of the Sherman Act, see his contract where they talk about NCAA violations.

Individual schools can setup their own policy, setting up and working with the NCAA as a monopoly is the problem, see Supreme Court decision. You really shouldn't have to read the decision, even the most stupid college player knew this was a scam.

There really isn't some complex thing here. LOL
 
#89
#89
bamawriter said:
Which rules in particular? There are a lot of rules. Which ones do you think the contract violates?
Click to expand...

You were talking about the contract but you quote me about criminal prosecution. DOJ would use the rules on their website as evidence of their criminal activity. Those rules shouldn't exist!

All of this is a waste of time, same thing I said nearly 10 years ago. Its only going to get worse.

You wouldn't listen years ago, you're not going to listen now.

The business model is gone.
 
#90
#90
LSU-SIU said:
Those terms are a violation of the sherman act, those restrictions can't exist as a matter of law. LSU could said that Wade couldn't pay players, but as soon as you have the NCAA restricting with LSU... its a clear violation of the Sherman Act, see his contract where they talk about NCAA violations.

Individual schools can setup their own policy, setting up and working with the NCAA as a monopoly is the problem, see Supreme Court decision. You really shouldn't have to read the decision, even the most stupid college player knew this was a scam.

There really isn't some complex thing here. LOL
Click to expand...
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has only ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws (Section 1 of the Sherman Act) by restricting certain education-related benefits to student athletes. The issue of restricting broader compensation, such as for athletic performance, has not yet been addressed. The Supreme Court specifically stated that further legislation was needed to address those issues.
 
#91
#91
LSU-SIU said:
Those terms are a violation of the sherman act, those restrictions can't exist as a matter of law.
Click to expand...

How so? Again, all you're saying is that it's so without offering any support for the statement.

LSU could said that Wade couldn't pay players, but as soon as you have the NCAA restricting with LSU... its a clear violation of the Sherman Act, see his contract where they talk about NCAA violations.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. This is the Chewbacca defense.

Individual schools can setup their own policy, setting up and working with the NCAA as a monopoly is the problem, see Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

Why don't you quote the decision?

You really shouldn't have to read the decision,
Click to expand...

Well, I have. Maybe your argument would make more sense if I hadn't.
 
#92
#92
LSU-SIU said:
You were talking about the contract but you quote me about criminal prosecution. DOJ would use the rules on their website as evidence of their criminal activity. Those rules shouldn't exist!

All of this is a waste of time, same thing I said nearly 10 years ago. Its only going to get worse.

You wouldn't listen years ago, you're not going to listen now.

The business model is gone.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the NCAA and have argued against their draconian rules for years.

However, the rules against directly paying players are still in place as the courts have yet to overturn them. They very well might in the not too distant future, but they haven't yet.

A city could raise the speed limit on a certain road, but it doesn't mean that everyone that was previously ticketed for speeding gets his money back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#93
#93
BowlBrother85 said:
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has only ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws (Section 1 of the Sherman Act) by restricting certain education-related benefits to student athletes. The issue of restricting broader compensation, such as for athletic performance, has not yet been addressed. The Supreme Court specifically stated that further legislation was needed to address those issues.
Click to expand...

The Sherman Act makes no distinction between types of commerce, generally speaking.

The Supreme Court specifically stated that further legislation was needed to address those issues.
Click to expand...

They told the NCAA they should possibly work with Congress as there is no out for them.

The law is clear, they just think they'll get a free pass. What the Supreme Court is saying is if you want exempt status you need to get with Congress.

(3) The NCAA also submits that a rule of reason analysis is inap-
propriate because its member schools are not “commercial enterprises”
but rather institutions that exist to further the societally important
noncommercial objective of undergraduate education. This submission
also fails. The Court has regularly refused these sorts of special dis-
pensations from the Sherman Act. See FTC v. Superior Court Trial
Lawyers Assn., 493 U. S. 411, 424. The Court has also previously sub-
jected the NCAA to the Sherman Act, and any argument that “the spe-
cial characteristics of [the NCAA’s] particular industry” should exempt
it from the usual operation of the antitrust laws is “properly addressed
to Congress.” N
Click to expand...
 
#94
#94
bamawriter said:
I'm not a fan of the NCAA and have argued against their draconian rules for years.

However, the rules against directly paying players are still in place as the courts have yet to overturn them. They very well might in the not too distant future, but they haven't yet.

A city could raise the speed limit on a certain road, but it doesn't mean that everyone that was previously ticketed for speeding gets his money back.
Click to expand...

If the city doesn't enforce than its all moot and immaterial. The NCAA is not really enforcing anything so what is there to overturn? Until someone is damaged by their action than standing could be a problem but if you don't believe enforcement is going to happen why would anyone do anything? There laws across the good ole US which are unconstitutional, but nobody cares because a good portion of them are never enforced.

The NCAA isn't doing anything to anyone, not really.
 
#95
#95
LSU-SIU said:
The Sherman Act makes no distinction between types of commerce, generally speaking.



They told the NCAA they should possibly work with Congress as there is no out for them.

The law is clear, they just think they'll get a free pass. What the Supreme Court is saying is if you want exempt status you need to get with Congress.
Click to expand...
You are still trying to include more into that Supreme Court decision than what is there. They did not address the issue of whether or not the NCAA can restrict their member institutions from paying athletes for athletic performance.
 
#96
#96
bamawriter said:
I'm not a fan of the NCAA and have argued against their draconian rules for years.

However, the rules against directly paying players are still in place as the courts have yet to overturn them. They very well might in the not too distant future, but they haven't yet.

A city could raise the speed limit on a certain road, but it doesn't mean that everyone that was previously ticketed for speeding gets his money back.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is it. Short and sweet.
 
#97
#97
BowlBrother85 said:
You are still trying to include more into that Supreme Court decision than what is there. They did not address the issue of whether or not the NCAA can restrict their member institutions from paying athletes for athletic performance.
Click to expand...

Of course because it wasn't apart of the original case on appeal. There is no difference in the Sherman Act as to particular types of commerce. Anyone can appeal. LOL

The Supreme Court won't really be involved here on out, the lower courts and appeals will wipe the NCAA out from here on out.... the sooner they try and fix their broken business model... the more money they can get from the players while they can.
 
#98
#98
BowlBrother85 said:
Yes. That is it. Short and sweet.
Click to expand...

Someone can seek a declaration and/or an injunction to stop the rule, if I remember correctly that is how the "educational benefits" case was initially done. However, if they are not enforcing anything that damages someone there really isn't anything to "overturn".... not really.

Its a show, and really its just a clown show at this point.

The reason why they didn't touch Pearl is they didn't want to lose a quarter billion, they'll play pretend with low hanging or dead fruit like Person.
 
#99
#99
LSU-SIU said:
Of course because it wasn't apart of the original case on appeal. There is no difference in the Sherman Act as to particular types of commerce. Anyone can appeal. LOL
Click to expand...

But until those allegations are addressed by the courts they aren't violations of the Sherman Act.

The Supreme Court won't really be involved here on out, the lower courts and appeals will wipe the NCAA out from here on out....
Click to expand...

But they haven't yet.

Let's take LSU out of it. Do you think Jeremy Pruitt should succeed in a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee?
 
Last edited:
#100
#100
LSU-SIU said:
Someone can seek a declaration and/or an injunction to stop the rule, if I remember correctly that is how the "educational benefits" case was initially done. However, if they are not enforcing anything that damages someone there really isn't anything to "overturn".... not really.

Its a show, and really its just a clown show at this point.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you are counting on some future litigation or perhaps some new form of legislation. Things which haven't happened yet. As it stands now, the NCAA still has the legal authority to restrict their member institutions from directly paying student-athletes for athletic performance. They can also sanction members who violate rules imposing those restrictions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top