Resolving College Eligibility Issues

[jermhoosierfan]

10 hours ago, AZ Hoosier said:

SIAP

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/49169049/suit-alleges-new-ncaa-rule-unfair-high-school-class-2022

[jermhoosierfan]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/49501752/big-ten-sec-support-college-sports-bill-reviving-senate-chances

Looks like the SEC and B1G is supporting the bill in the Senate now.  

[str8baller]

1 hour ago, jermhoosierfan said:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/49501752/big-ten-sec-support-college-sports-bill-reviving-senate-chances

Looks like the SEC and B1G is supporting the bill in the Senate now.  

SEC is too f’n dumb to play this game. All their crowing at media day about breaking away got people pissed off at an already volatile time. This bill should’ve been easy to kill behind the scenes.  And you don’t threaten something publicly you aren’t willing to do.  
 

Hopefully they have a plan to amend it or kill it elsewhere or secretly know it is DOA at some juncture. Maybe they have an amendment someone has promised to throw on it. As drafted it is bad for the B1G and IU.

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, jermhoosierfan said:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/49501752/big-ten-sec-support-college-sports-bill-reviving-senate-chances

Looks like the SEC and B1G is supporting the bill in the Senate now.  

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.   

[str8baller]

49 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

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.   

Tuberville’s bill is cleaner and better for schools like IU because it doesn’t potentially shove revenue sharing down the schools throat. 
 

Also, I’m calling it now, if this passes letting the dopes at the NCAA try and police NIL deals is a recipe for disaster  (ie more litigation they’ll lose). 

[str8baller]

https://x.com/petenakos/status/2083623775359103371?s=46

 

The ncaa legal dept actually showing signs of life! 
 

As I guessed, the Colorado judge likely got way over her skis on certification of the class and makingit  a nationwide injunction.  But we’ll see…

 

No signs of them appealing the alexis decision 

[Golfman25]

2 hours ago, str8baller said:

Tuberville’s bill is cleaner and better for schools like IU because it doesn’t potentially shove revenue sharing down the schools throat. 
 

Also, I’m calling it now, if this passes letting the dopes at the NCAA try and police NIL deals is a recipe for disaster  (ie more litigation they’ll lose). 

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.  

[str8baller]

27 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

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.  

Tuberville bill takes care of what fans are really frustrated about: transfers and eligibility. I believe it limits to 5 years and 1 free transfer.  
 

The money stuff will work its way out. The anti trust exemption would be huge but it could be attained judicially , as well. And a third party limiting what two other parties can contract for (eg NCAA regulating NIL deals) will always be disfavored, and they’ve already lost that case anyways. They’ll continue to lose them no matter what congress passes. 
 

In any event, why would IU want to limit itself against Kansas and UNC? We have lived that world for 40+ years already. We also know they’ll just cheat anyways.  That’s literally turning a huge advantage for IU into a huge disadvantage. Makes no sense for IU or the B1G. 

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

I may have stay off of X for a few days.  All I'm seeing is one after another player x considering a return to college or player x will enter the portal.

I think the court rulings, the NCAA's statement and the B1G and SEC announcing their support will get Congress to do something and quickly.  There's maybe but a small handful of elected officials whose alma mater or any number of institutions of higher learning located in their districts not impacted by this chaos.

[Golfman25]

2 hours ago, str8baller said:

Tuberville bill takes care of what fans are really frustrated about: transfers and eligibility. I believe it limits to 5 years and 1 free transfer.  
 

The money stuff will work its way out. The anti trust exemption would be huge but it could be attained judicially , as well. And a third party limiting what two other parties can contract for (eg NCAA regulating NIL deals) will always be disfavored, and they’ve already lost that case anyways. They’ll continue to lose them no matter what congress passes. 
 

In any event, why would IU want to limit itself against Kansas and UNC? We have lived that world for 40+ years already. We also know they’ll just cheat anyways.  That’s literally turning a huge advantage for IU into a huge disadvantage. Makes no sense for IU or the B1G. 

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.  

[str8baller]

1 hour ago, Golfman25 said:

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 contrac

You have contracts now. Non-issue. 
 

You can transfer as much as you want now. The issue is eligibility. And every league has litigated and enforced eligibility. You can’t join the NBA or NFL out of HS no matter how much you want to.  Similarly, something like the senior pga can restrict eligibility based on age. 
 

A college league can enforce eligibility. It’s just a matter of how and what parameters. 

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, str8baller said:

You have contracts now. Non-issue. 
 

You can transfer as much as you want now. The issue is eligibility. And every league has litigated and enforced eligibility. You can’t join the NBA or NFL out of HS no matter how much you want to.  Similarly, something like the senior pga can restrict eligibility based on age. 
 

A college league can enforce eligibility. It’s just a matter of how and what parameters. 

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.  

[str8baller]

10 hours ago, Golfman25 said:

They aren’t multi year deals that cover playing for a specific team.  

There’s nothing preventing that. The QB at Miami is in litigation with Duke because he broke his multi year contract. The schools are directly paying the players out of revenue sharing currently.  
 

Things like the PGA/UFC are independent contractors but there are barriers to entry and rules on eligibility (same as NFL, NBA, etc…) even without collective bargaining. For many of the reasons those athletes don’t/can’t collective bargain, I suspect college athletes will find it hard to collective bargain.  
 

So that leaves possible legislation setting the market. I find that a bad idea in general, and definitely not in IU’s interest. 

[Pagoda]

There are two money pools.  NIL isn’t tied to a specific team and it’s struggled to stop player movement, though it does make it a little tougher, we’ve seen the lawsuits from schools the player left.  The other money pool is rev share, and that is tied to playing at a school and it has teeth if done right like the B1G’s template language.  See Demond Williams at Washington… he tried to leave and UW stopped him quite easily.

As for the cap… that’s interesting.  It’s proposed at $49M right now in the Save College Sports Bill and IU is currently exceeding that by a little bit.  Some schools are exceeding it by more.  I don’t know how this plays out for us.  If one assumes schools will still exceed it via cheating… which is logical, I get the argument that is bad for us and that concern is legit and could be right.  I guess the bright spot is I know IU does all they can to blow past the current $22M cap and we aren’t the naive athletic dept we used to be.

Personally I’m burned out of all this and I can’t tell exactly how it would affect us… so whatever happens so be it I think IU can figure it out.  It helps to have Cig.

[Golfman25]

2 hours ago, str8baller said:

There’s nothing preventing that. The QB at Miami is in litigation with Duke because he broke his multi year contract. The schools are directly paying the players out of revenue sharing currently.  
 

Things like the PGA/UFC are independent contractors but there are barriers to entry and rules on eligibility (same as NFL, NBA, etc…) even without collective bargaining. For many of the reasons those athletes don’t/can’t collective bargain, I suspect college athletes will find it hard to collective bargain.  
 

So that leaves possible legislation setting the market. I find that a bad idea in general, and definitely not in IU’s interest. 

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

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, Pagoda said:

There are two money pools.  NIL isn’t tied to a specific team and it’s struggled to stop player movement, though it does make it a little tougher, we’ve seen the lawsuits from schools the player left.  The other money pool is rev share, and that is tied to playing at a school and it has teeth if done right like the B1G’s template language.  See Demond Williams at Washington… he tried to leave and UW stopped him quite easily.

As for the cap… that’s interesting.  It’s proposed at $49M right now in the Save College Sports Bill and IU is currently exceeding that by a little bit.  Some schools are exceeding it by more.  I don’t know how this plays out for us.  If one assumes schools will still exceed it via cheating… which is logical, I get the argument that is bad for us and that concern is legit and could be right.  I guess the bright spot is I know IU does all they can to blow past the current $22M cap and we aren’t the naive athletic dept we used to be.

Personally I’m burned out of all this and I can’t tell exactly how it would affect us… so whatever happens so be it I think IU can figure it out.  It helps to have Cig.

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.  

[str8baller]

4 hours ago, Golfman25 said:

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

Lol…no you don’t. No offense, but I think you’re the one confused here.  
 

 

[Golfman25]

2 hours ago, str8baller said:

Lol…no you don’t. No offense, but I think you’re the one confused here.  
 

 

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.  

[str8baller]

17 hours ago, Golfman25 said:

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.  

You just don’t fundamentally understand the nature of their political/legal issues. I mentioned the anti trust as a potential obstacle but they don’t necessarily need a statutory exemption.  
 

Here’s a pretty cursory but solid breakdown from a law firm’s blog: Link 

 

Relevant parts: 

This inherent need for cooperation distinguishes sports from most other commercial industries and has historically been used to justify more lenient antitrust treatment for restrictions and agreements that promote competitive balance. Major League Baseball (MLB), for example, has benefited from a broad, though antiquated, antitrust exemption since the Supreme Court’s 1922 decision Federal Baseball Club v. National League. Other major professional leagues—the NFL, NBA, and NHL—are subject to antitrust laws but they have generally succeeded in defending their practices in antitrust challenges.

…

Similarly, in collegiate athletics, the NCAA and its member institutions must coordinate on eligibility requirements, recruitment rules, academic standards, and competitive formats to create a competitively balanced system of intercollegiate competition. The Supreme Court recognized this reality in NCAA v. Board of Regents, noting that horizontal restraints on competition are “essential if the product is to be available at all” in the context of collegiate sports. 468 U.S. 85, 101 (1984).

 

You can click the link and learn more if you actually want to learn something (or just reread my comments in this thread since I’ve pointed out the same thing). 

 

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, str8baller said:

You just don’t fundamentally understand the nature of their political/legal issues. I mentioned the anti trust as a potential obstacle but they don’t necessarily need a statutory exemption.  
 

Here’s a pretty cursory but solid breakdown from a law firm’s blog: Link 

 

Relevant parts: 

This inherent need for cooperation distinguishes sports from most other commercial industries and has historically been used to justify more lenient antitrust treatment for restrictions and agreements that promote competitive balance. Major League Baseball (MLB), for example, has benefited from a broad, though antiquated, antitrust exemption since the Supreme Court’s 1922 decision Federal Baseball Club v. National League. Other major professional leagues—the NFL, NBA, and NHL—are subject to antitrust laws but they have generally succeeded in defending their practices in antitrust challenges.

Sports

 

…

Similarly, in collegiate athletics, the NCAA and its member institutions must coordinate on eligibility requirements, recruitment rules, academic standards, and competitive formats to create a competitively balanced system of intercollegiate competition. The Supreme Court recognized this reality in NCAA v. Board of Regents, noting that horizontal restraints on competition are “essential if the product is to be available at all” in the context of collegiate sports. 468 U.S. 85, 101 (1984).

 

You can click the link and learn more if you actually want to learn something (or just reread my comments in this thread since I’ve pointed out the same thing). 

 

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.