Golfman25

and charge for admission.

It's usually a good idea to read the source you post, before you use it as a source. That blog basically supports my point -- Things are changing. Start with this from the introduction: ". . . there has been a shift. Recent high-profile cases signal that litigants, enforcers, and courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether specific arrangements are truly necessary for the sporting product or merely a tool to maximize profits." Of course they then point out a Congressional antitrust exemption to allow the pro leagues to negotiate TV rights deals: " Congress also shaped the landscape with the Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA) of 1961, which grants a limited antitrust exemption for the collective sale of over-the-air broadcast rights by the “Big Four” professional sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL). " And this statement signals the legal shift: "courts are less likely to defer to sporting justifications when arrangements appear to primarily maximize profit." And then then they end with this: "As the sports industry continues to expand into new commercial frontiers, organizations and their partners must navigate an increasingly complex antitrust landscape where traditional justifications for cooperation are subject to heightened scrutiny." So basically, to sum it up -- reliance on what was done in the past (i.e. deference to the league) is a risk and the legal standards are changing. No league, including the NCAA, can survive unlimited, never ending litigation. A Congressional anti-trust exemption solves much of that problem.

Ha, you're funny. Wrong. but funny. If antitrust laws and restraint of trade were not the problem, the NCAA would be in the predicament it finds itself.

Look it’s pretty easy. Free agency is the normal state of all business. You are generally free to change jobs at will and do what you want. That general principle can be restricted by contract. Collective bargaining is a contract. Thus, absent a contract, you can’t restrict player transfers. That is where the NCAA ran into trouble. They had draconian transfer rules. Now that money comes into play, that affects commerce which literally ups the anti for players. Now that money is in play, the playing field is level between the former cheaters and non-cheaters. It’s not level between the haves and have nots. Every professional league has guardrails for survival. College athletics at this point should be no different.

You clearly don’t understand how the antitrust laws play here. That is the reason you need Congressional action.

The Contracts aren’t really player contracts, they are simply NIL deals with a third party. They aren’t multi year deals that cover playing for a specific team. NBA and NFL are subject to collective bargaining. That’s how they restrict entry. Big difference and unionization is not what the ncaa wants. PGA/SR PGA aren’t even close as there is zero guaranteed money. Each golfer is an independent contractor and eats what he kills.

Because there is no sport that can survive unlimited budgets and annual free agency. Parameters need to be put in place to assure competitiveness. Every league does it so the precedent is well established. Problem is, Without contracts, you will never be able to limit transfers. That is completely illegal, disfavored, and probably unconstitutional. There is no profession that limits transfers, without a contract.

I don’t really know the differences in the bills. But the key is to give college athletes an antitrust exemption so they can make rules. I would get rid of “NIL” all together and make it what it really is at this point - friends of the program. Have that money fund a collective and add revenue sharing. Each athletic department can then allocate that among the sports as they see fit subject to “salary caps”. Each sport can use their cap money as they see fit. Any outside deals between athletes and local businesses must be commercially realistic and viable.

They have to. With the current NCAA neutered college sports will eventually collapse. Someone needs to set some ground rules — either the NCAA or another oversight organization.

Yeah, no legitimate sport works that way. To lose a man for the current game, have to play one short, and then he's out the next game as well. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's horse crap and why Soccer won't take off in the USA. That and the stupid clock. WTF is that?

You need to account for pre and post transfer portal (2021). Prior to the portal and NIL, it took several years to build a team. With the transfer rules today, teams can be build much faster. But you know that. Hurley actually won 2 tourney games before he joined Uconn.

That right there is the problem. Whether the guy is mid-major, high-major or no-major, he should be able to take the job and put IU on a path to success without "getting his feet wet" or "figuring it out." If you don't know enough on how to compete at the job your taking, then you aren't ready for the job. Nobody says it's easy, but that's why they get paid the big bucks. The thing you need to watch for with the mid-major guys is are they winning due to a "gimmick" and are they willing to adopt a broader approach at the P5 level? You can win at lower levels being one sided (pack line D, "Havoc," etc.) but get exposed at the higher levels.

Yes, what he did was amazing. Not many coaches can do it. But, he's essentially done it at evey level, every school he's been to. The Cig model is no different than US Hockey under Herb Brooks -- take the talent and put it into a system designed for the betterment of the team. He starts with the QB position. And backs him up with a running game and strong defense. From there, it's about outworking the opponent and executing. It's process-focused, not results-focused. I think Dusty has some of the same qualities, that's all.

There are other Cigs out there. Dusty seems like the basketball version. Successful coaches all have similar characteristics. As I have said, just model them and find the next.

Exactly. Crean will always be a part of IU basketball and should be thanked for walking into a real chitshow. But he wasn't really fired only for results, as they were actually pretty good looking back. But there were other issues with the program and where it was headed.

Pam Witten is 180 degrees opposite of Myles Brand. She values the importance of athletics, especially football, to the University.

If you're not first, your last. : } But I guess it depends on what your goals are. If they are to be Mid, then a sweet 16 here and there is a good showing. However, if your goat is to compete at a championship level, the Sweet 16 becomes the minimum performance. The best coaches do Sweet 16 or better 48% to 62% of the time. Knight (IU) & Self (KU) at (48%); Cal (UK), Dean Smith and Roy Williams (NC) all around 55%; The King, Coach K is at 62%. There is zero reason IU's goal can't be to compete at a championship level, again.

Yeah, piss poor decision making from the top. High performing coaches are few, but easy to model. IU has almost purposely hired the wrong guy because they didn’t want another Bob Knight, bigger than the program guy.

If you think Woodson was a good coach, I don’t know what to tell you.

Although true, in the NBA you get stuck with what the GM gives you. Unless you have that roster responsibility, which puts you back into the “no downtime” mode.

Dude, JC himself couldn't do squat with the Bulls. :]

Football says "hold my beer." :]

I’m thinking we dodged a bullet with this guy. : /

They got some fresh video:

At this stage in the draft, they all basically have the same skill sets -- size, speed, etc. The difference is mindset, work ethic, and attitude. I'll take Black, Saratt, et. al. over some of these other clowns every day of the week.