SpaceCoastVol
Jacked up on moonshine and testosterone
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 53,909
- Likes
- 67,658
If that happens,here's what you will get with it.An antitrust exemption is the only way
Actually, the Tennessee case didn't do that.The choice is:
Pay the market rate, whether you think it's overpriced or not, or do without good things.
UT wants to win so they pay ridiculous prices for talented players.
There have been times in my life where I felt like chuck steak was the best I could afford and other times when I've picked up filet. It's a choice. UT has made choices to get here.
UT chose suing, actually getting the State to join the lawsuit, which led to multiple transfers with no penalty and joined several lawsuits to make NIL almost completely unregulated.
Obviously, UT is comfortable with this and I'm a UT fan. And most importantly...... UT Athletics is thriving, doing better than we have in a number of years in several sports.
What's to complain about? It's working.
Well you’d have to hope they could collectively bargain some of those things. I don’t mind NIL still being a thing. I mind guys jumping ship every year for a few extra dollars of it. Don’t totally blame them, but it’s to the detriment of the game.If that happens,here's what you will get with it.
Employee or contractor status.
Unionized athletes.
Strikes.
A 131 team draft instead of recruiting.
Military academies not competing in athletic s due to not fitting the employee model.
Involuntary trades.
Holdouts during contract disputes.
MUCH more expensive tickets, parking, extra fees, more costly team apparel and gear.
It won't affect NIL at all. See the current NIL deals that NFL, and other pro athletes have.
If you get an antitrust exe Orion you get the other things that go with it...just like the pros have now. That means that the cure may well be worse than the disease.
Well you’d have to hope they could collectively bargain some of those things. I don’t mind NIL still being a thing. I mind guys jumping ship every year for a few extra dollars of it. Don’t totally blame them, but it’s to the detriment of the game.
There is no perfect fix, but an antitrust exemption would at least allow a framework to rein some of this in.
Right up to the point that the athletes unionized and held a strike until the NCAA and schools buckled due to collective bargaining.Right up until the players union has a"At least" is massively underselling it. An anti-trust exemption would allow the schools near-complete authority to set whatever rules they wanted for the system. It would effectively allow them to present a "take it or leave it" offer to anyone interested in participating. But most of all, it could allow them to enforce those rules through eligibility controls. That's the real power, the ability to establish eligibility requirements as a group. "Your players must meet these eligibility requirements to participate." And not only could it be used to reign in booster spending, but transfer rules as well. You want to transfer? That's fine, but you have to wait for the next season to participate in the sport. No more bidding for immediate mercenary transfers.
With employee status, there won't be transfers. There will be trades."At least" is massively underselling it. An anti-trust exemption would allow the schools near-complete authority to set whatever rules they wanted for the system. It would effectively allow them to present a "take it or leave it" offer to anyone interested in participating. But most of all, it could allow them to enforce those rules through eligibility controls. That's the real power, the ability to establish eligibility requirements as a group. "Your players must meet these eligibility requirements to participate." And not only could it be used to reign in booster spending, but transfer rules as well. You want to transfer? That's fine, but you have to wait for the next season to participate in the sport. No more bidding for immediate mercenary transfers.
Right up to the point that the athletes unionized and held a strike until the NCAA and schools buckled due to collective bargaining.
Again, it's not a question of what they can/should live on...it's a basic question of economic freedom which we all want for ourselves but too many seemingly diminish the importance when pontificating on what others should be allowed to do.If a student can't live on $100,000/year (Plus they have free tuition, food and shelter), they have a big problem(A fool and their money always part) and should hire a finance expert.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()