Lawsuit against the NCAA regarding amateur status of the players

[bamawriter]

Really? This is the best argument you can come up with?

What other argument do you want? I'm not in favor of full-fledged free agency. But I think the status quo is absurd. There has to be some middle ground.

 

[bamawriter]

in theory, i am in favor of stipends as well.

but....

1. i know that's not the end game.

2. the whole argument is how rich the schools are from the backs of the kids. the star qb isn't going to be happy about making the same small stipend as the 3rd string offensive guard or members of the women's golf team.

There is a certainly a slippery slope issue involved. But I think if it goes beyond reasonable stipends, the next lawsuit should be against the NFL for requiring that their players be out of high school for three years. If a star QB doesn't think he's making enough on top of his free education, then he should be looking to ply his trade professionally.

 

[Burger]

I disagree, the athletes have been stupid to wait for the last 40 years (since college sports have become mega businesses).

If this involved garbage collections... the people in the NCAA and the people involved in at the colleges would be wearing orange jump suits. I fail to see why the statutory laws of the various States and the Federal government have to willfully not enforced for the benefit of the NCAA and colleges because of sports.

Either way each college athlete has multiple paths for remedy which can be carried out separately if needed. I would like DOJ and the State's AGs to get involved years ago.... some of these people need to be indicted. IMHO.

No other business is able to run like these college sports... why? Because it's freaking immoral and illegal.

NCAA is a protected monopoly like the NFL, MLB, and NBA. Most schools would fold if athletes got paid. The unintended consequences are going to destroy college football as a whole. Most college athletic programs do not make profits either.

 

[99gator]

if athletes are true free agents on the open market, you destroy college athletics and you also end up hurting the majority of the kids.

if i am forced to pay fair market value for you, then i can also fire you when you aren't preforming at your job.

you would kill non revenue sports.

the great misconception with all of this....and i'll use florida as an example. florida's athletic program makes a boatload of money. and yes, there are employees such as the coaches, medical staffs, etc, that are paid as a result of the operation of the athletic department. i get that.

but, there is no jerry jones here. there is no owner walking away with all the money. there are no stockholders.

so, the idea that this is a "business" bothers me, because it is not owned or operated like any other business i can think of. if it were, non revenue sports would be folded. no business would have 20 divisions where 2 divisions make money and 18 divisions lose money. It's not due to mismanagement either. every other company operating those same 18 divisions within their corporation loses money as well.

are high schools in violation of child labor laws? there are plenty of high school football programs that make a nice chunk of change. do those kids deserve a piece of that?

 

[Burger]

There is a certainly a slippery slope issue involved. But I think if it goes beyond reasonable stipends, the next lawsuit should be against the NFL for requiring that their players be out of high school for three years. If a star QB doesn't think he's making enough on top of his free education, then he should be looking to ply his trade professionally.

He can in Canada. You're asking for profootball quality to be the NBA bad. The sport will suck even more if that happened.

 

[Grand Vol]

What other argument do you want? I'm not in favor of full-fledged free agency. But I think the status quo is absurd. There has to be some middle ground.

You and I both know there are already under the table stipends. And whether the person is running track or playing football, coaches know where to get a few extra bucks.

 

[bamawriter]

He can in Canada. You're asking for profootball quality to be the NBA bad. The sport will suck even more if that happened.

An American court can't use the possibility of work in another country as a mitigating factor.

But to your point about competitive quality, there is no way to pass a law that anyone draft a kid coming out of high school. There is no way to pass a law that guarantees any particular player any particular professional salary. But it can be declared that the three year rule violates the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

 

[bamawriter]

You and I both know there are already under the table stipends. And whether the person is running track or playing football, coaches know where to get a few extra bucks.

So the fact that a player might be profiting illicitly excuses the fact that the NCAA's rules are antiquated and ridiculous?

 

[Grand Vol]

So the fact that a player might be profiting illicitly excuses the fact that the NCAA's rules are antiquated and ridiculous?

I didn't say it was right or wrong, but the simple fact it does happen.

 

[bamawriter]

I didn't say it was right or wrong, but the simple fact it does happen.

And I'm simply saying that a lot of violations could be negated by a reasonable stipend.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I would tend to think that someone that does good at their job would tend to get paid more and be a valuable commodity. Reference your Saban and Miles "deserving more." Have they not proved they are a valuable asset and get paid more?

But that's obviously not the point and you are attempting to divert this from the point. Student athletes, by and large, are not subject to this mystical collusion you speak of.

Well have to agree to disagree. It's very obvious that colluding is going on, how do I know that..... contracts.

As far as "student athletes" there is no such thing as they pertain the laws of the Federal or State level. It's a fictitious invention for obvious reasons.

And how far back will colleges have to go to pay past players? Because you darn well know it will happen.

Yes, it is going to happen, been saying it for years. Who knows how far, many many lawsuits to go.

 

[LSU-SIU]

NCAA is a protected monopoly like the NFL, MLB, and NBA. Most schools would fold if athletes got paid. The unintended consequences are going to destroy college football as a whole. Most college athletic programs do not make profits either.

I disagree, funny most college athletics beyond D-1 and football/basketball/baseball are not regulated like this... they still exist.

Either way, I fail to see the difference, it's a business... simple as that... and they are willfully disregarding countless laws.... and willfully profiting at the expense of others.

 

[bamawriter]

Well have to agree to disagree. It's very obvious that colluding is going on, how do I know that..... contracts.

Collusion is going to be a tough sell. The NCAA has an anti-trust exemption, and is a membership-run organization. Passing rules, regulations, or bylaws voted on by the membership is not really colluding, by any legal definition.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Collusion is going to be a tough sell. The NCAA has an anti-trust exemption, and is a membership-run organization.

Passing rules, regulations, or bylaws voted on by the membership is not really colluding, by any legal definition.

That is exactly what they are going after now... they are calling it a "cartel".

Passing rules, regulations, or bylaws voted on by the membership is not really colluding, by any legal definition.

That is exactly what colluding and price fixing is. Get BP and Exxon in a room and see the indictments fly.

With that said, I see nothing wrong with the colleges setting up how the game between the four corners of the field are regulated for sports. That is not colluding... coming up with a plan to stop people from getting money, yes that is colluding.

Now if an individual school wants that rule that they will not pay players... that is fine as well in my book, as long as they are not trying to stop a player from getting fair market value.

Most of this is pretty simple and common sense in my book, the only surprise to me is it has taken 40 years.

 

[Grand Vol]

And I'm simply saying that a lot of violations could be negated by a reasonable stipend.

Stipends will eventually lead to all out paying for players. It's a natural progression.

 

[LSU-SIU]

car·tel noun \kär-ˈtel\
: a group of businesses that agree to fix prices so they all will make more money

The attorney used that word, which is colluding to fix a price, in this case fixing the prices by colluding to the amount they have to pay out. He is right, as I have said this for years on this forum... nobody wanted to say it until now.

Start a business like this and you will be in orange jump suit.... if it involves college sports somehow illegal activity is not only a given it's encouraged.

 

[bamawriter]

That is exactly what they are going after now... they are calling it a "cartel".

I don't think they can succeed if that is their sole argument. There are many arguments to be made for compensation beyond the cost of education. Collusion amongst the membership of an organization that enjoys anti-trust protection is a tad ridiculous.

That is exactly what colluding and price fixing is. Get BP and Exxon in a room and see the indictments fly.

Terrible analogy. BP and Exxon are for-profit corporations that do not have any anti-trust exemptions, and they are nominally competitors. Ther is no comparison between them and a non-profit, membership-only organization.

With that said, I see nothing wrong with the colleges setting up how the game between the four corners of the field are regulated for sports. That is not colluding... coming up with a plan to stop people from getting money, yes that is colluding.

Now if an individual school wants that rule that they will not pay players... that is fine as well in my book, as long as they are not trying to stop a player from getting fair market value.

But there's the rub: fair market value is set by the professional organizations, not the amateurs. One can question the way that the NCAA enforces amateurism (God knows I have major issues with them), but if you choose to compete as an amateur, fair market value is irrelevant.

The NCAA isn't forcing anyone to play for any amount of compensation. The entity that is controlling the marketplace, at least when it comes to football, is the NFL. If the NFL were to allow anyone to join at any time, then every football player would be free to pursue whatever he believes his value to be.

 

[bamawriter]

Stipends will eventually lead to all out paying for players. It's a natural progression.

I'm not really sure it's all that natural. There is certainly a slippery slope argument to be made, but I'm not personally sold on it.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I don't think they can succeed if that is their sole argument. There are many arguments to be made for compensation beyond the cost of education. Collusion amongst the membership of an organization that enjoys anti-trust protection is a tad ridiculous.

There is no anti-trust protection. Matter of fact there can be none as the college say they are not business but school activity.

Terrible analogy. BP and Exxon are for-profit corporations that do not have any anti-trust exemptions, and they are nominally competitors. Ther is no comparison between them and a non-profit, membership-only organization.

There is very little difference between for profit and non-profit, although some statutory laws maybe different they must all conform to law which is not the case here.

You are making arguments but they have no basis in law.

But there's the rub: fair market value is set by the professional organizations, not the amateurs. One can question the way that the NCAA enforces amateurism (God knows I have major issues with them), but if you choose to compete as an amateur, fair market value is irrelevant.

There really is no such thing as "amateur" as they pertain to most college sports, it's a made up word in it's context. I have no problem with a school not wanting to pay a player, but their involvement should end there.

The NCAA isn't forcing anyone to play for any amount of compensation.

BP and Exxon are not forcing anyone to pay any amount for a barrel of oil.

The entity that is controlling the marketplace, at least when it comes to football, is the NFL. If the NFL were to allow anyone to join at any time, then every football player would be free to pursue whatever he believes his value to be.

The professional sports leagues are involved in the collusion and I doubt their relief from the anti-trust act covers it.

It's pretty simple, tell coaches where they can't coach and you will see an instant injunction placed on any business that did it.... it really is that simple.

Resistance at this point is futile, it is not a matter of the NCAA and the colleges having to pay the piper but only the amount... they better start getting plan B together. imho.... I said this years ago.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It would look little different than the NFL. Just way more teams.

Good luck getting a salary cap into a paid NCAA, with the overseeing organization dead in bankruptcy. It would be a return to the days when Alabama paid players and recruited everyone in the nation, whether they planned to play them or not, just so their competitors wouldn't get them.

 

[99gator]

Good luck getting a salary cap into a paid NCAA, with the overseeing organization dead in bankruptcy. It would be a return to the days when Alabama paid players and recruited everyone in the nation, whether they planned to play them or not, just so their competitors wouldn't get them.

actually, that's a good point too in terms of the following.

would there be limits on how many players you could have.

after all, what business is forced not to hire people?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So, I don't think you are worth $1 a year, so I collude with any potential employer you may have to limit your pay to $1 a year... sounds fair.... I mean I said it was fair so it must be so, right?

What is funny about your argument, is most college divisions are not even regulated. Either way the colleges and the NCAA should not be stopping players from receiving money from third parties.... this is basically a mob technique that has been in place for decades.

So, is it colluded or not? It sounds like you described a scenario where there is no collusion. The athlete can either come, sign a contract, and play where there are regulations-- or go and play where there are no regulations.

Sounds simple enough.

But the high school players are standing in line to come play where things are regulated.

Odd...

 

[Orange_Crush]

I disagree, funny most college athletics beyond D-1 and football/basketball/baseball are not regulated like this... they still exist.

Funny how you keep destroying your own "collusion" argument.

 

[bamawriter]

There is no anti-trust protection. Matter of fact there can be none as the college say they are not business but school activity.

You are correct in part. The NCAA organization does not have an anti-trust exemption. However, all of the members (the schools) do. I think the lone exception might by Grand Canyon State, as they recently became a for-profit institution. But I really don't know what effect that change had on their status.

Either way, the members of the NCAA are not competitors by the legal definition. Thus, calling them a cartel is probably taking it too far.

There is very little difference between for profit and non-profit, although some statutory laws maybe different they must all conform to law which is not the case here.

You are making arguments but they have no basis in law.

I disagree. You are making an argument that has no basis in applicable law. Which is not out of the ordinary for you. Should I link to our past conversation where you accused me of libeling a recruit's mother?

There really is no such thing as "amateur" as they pertain to most college sports, it's a made up word in it's context. I have no problem with a school not wanting to pay a player, but their involvement should end there.

There is a semantic argument to be made regarding amateurism. If you're getting a free ride to college in return for playing a sport, and you an amateur? Therein lies one of my gripes with the way the NCAA handles certain things, like restricting an athlete's ability to use his name or image for promotional gain.

BP and Exxon are not forcing anyone to pay any amount for a barrel of oil.

They could, in that both companies do have their own drilling operations. A more obvious example: OPEC is a cartel, and they are able to manipulate the price of oil, and do so on a regular basis. BP and Exxon could, in theory, be capable of manipulating the price of a gallon of gas were they to collude with one another.

The professional sports leagues are involved in the collusion and I doubt their relief from the anti-trust act covers it.

I personally don't think their exemptions cover it at all. There is a decent argument to be made when it comes to the NCAA membership colluding with the pro leagues. But I don't think it's designed collusion. I don't think the NFL, for instance, gives a crap if a kid goes to college or plays in Canada for three years. The NFL's rule may be mutually beneficial, but the NFL isn't concerned with manipulating the market to favor the college game.

But here is where it becomes really tricky: if college athletes should be able to pursue fair market value, whatever that may be, how can an entry draft be legal? All of the pro leagues have drafts, and they absolutely, inarguably prevent the pursuit of fair market value.

 

[bamawriter]

Funny how you keep destroying your own "collusion" argument.

This happens every time SIU starts waxing legality.