Nil, Revenue Sharing and Title IX

#130
#130
S.C. OrangeMan said:
No ATE for the NCAA exists. Congress can't agree in what time of day it is. The NCAA isn't on the new Republican majority's trader screen right now. They have too many bigger fish to fry. It would be epically stupid of then to start with a very divisive issue that doesn't affect the vast majority of Americans.

And..again, an ATE won't give the NCAA the right to interfere with other people's or entities' private business deals. No antitrust exemption can confer that as alright or ability.

Supreme Court decisions are about specifics not speculative extrapolation.
Click to expand...
As you've been told, you're wrong. When TN and VA sued the NCAA because they wanted to use NIL for recruiting, they used the Sherman Act.

Basically that judge said: it's a violation of the Sherman Act for the NCAA to restrict the use of NIL.

He DIDN'T say it wasn't possible to restrict NIL no matter what, he said the NCAA didn't have the Antitrust Exemption to allow them to restrict NIL.

Hmm. If even Congress couldn't grant a restriction to NIL, why would the Sherman Act be needed? Hmmmmmmmm.

Yeah, because Congress obviously can grant NIL restrictions. If it was patently illegal there would be no reason for TN and VA to use Antitrust as an argument. You're wrong. Congress CAN allow restrictions on NIL via an Antitrust Exemption or they wouldn't be arguing the case that way.
 
#131
#131
Batman1948 said:
Man, this is gonna just muddy up everything that's going on today. $10M QB's may just disappear now----or the payments will go under the table again
Click to expand...
Going under the table vs the NCAA where the biggest risk is embarrassment/losing a job vs the government and going to jail…. Doubt it goes back to how it was
 
#133
#133
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I pulled it for me but it's really clear, probably even more clear if you're used to reading that type of thing.

SCOTUS seems to be saying: Make your case in Congress and see what they'll allow. It's pretty obvious after reading some that the MLB exemption isn't just like the NFL exemption nor the NBA exemption. I've not looked at the other industries mentioned but I'm certain they are nuanced.

Obviously, as you originally said weeks ago and promoted me to read further, Congress gives specific Antitrust Exemptions tailored to each situation and industry. I appreciate that education. Please don't invoice me.
Click to expand...
Lol. I am all for the players getting paid, but there's got to be some rules. I've only ever totally lost my patience with 1 other poster, but S.C. Orange Man became the 2nd. He's not being serious or discussing any of this in good faith. I probably should put him on ignore but what would be the fun in that? I don't blame you for disliking lawyers, I don't like most myself.
 
#135
#135
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Lol. I am all for the players getting paid, but there's got to be some rules. I've only ever totally lost my patience with 1 other poster, but S.C. Orange Man became the 2nd. He's not being serious or discussing any of this in good faith. I probably should put him on ignore but what would be the fun in that? I don't blame you for disliking lawyers, I don't like most myself.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'm very serious. Absolutely it's in good faith. I'm not a lawyer. I do have a political science graduate degree and an extensive background in public sector legal issues. You know, what we're talking about here.

And just for fun, in breaking news, the USDOJ just announced opposition to the House case settlement because the NIL clause illegally caid motivate NIL.

So much for your BS.

 
#136
#136
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Wrong. I'm very serious. Absolutely it's in good faith. I'm not a lawyer. I do have a political science graduate degree and an extensive background in public sector legal issues. You know, what we're talking about here.

And just for fun, in breaking news, the USDOJ just announced opposition to the House case settlement because the NIL clause illegally caid motivate NIL.

So much for your BS.

Click to expand...

Well sure guy, there's no antitrust exemption for college sports now is there? As long as there isn't one, DOJ is 100% right. As I have been telling you for weeks, only Congress can fix this, the proposed House settlement was never going to plug the holes. It's got more problems than just this too. I have never tooted the horn of the House settlement as being anything with a prospect of success. I have said from the beginning, ONLY CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS.
 
#139
#139
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Lol. I am all for the players getting paid, but there's got to be some rules. I've only ever totally lost my patience with 1 other poster, but S.C. Orange Man became the 2nd. He's not being serious or discussing any of this in good faith. I probably should put him on ignore but what would be the fun in that? I don't blame you for disliking lawyers, I don't like most myself.
Click to expand...
You're kind about it with me. I didn't believe Congress could pull off the NIL restriction either and I was wrong, of course. I'm unsure if this guy's problem is youth or if he's a debate club standout just sharpening his claws (against iron in your case.)
 
#141
#141
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
You're kind about it with me. I didn't believe Congress could pull off the NIL restriction either and I was wrong, of course. I'm unsure if this guy's problem is youth or if he's a debate club standout just sharpening his claws (against iron in your case.)
Click to expand...
Neither. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm retired after a long career. You must live bogus projection...pfft.

And to bolster my point...



 
#142
#142
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Well sure guy, there's no antitrust exemption for college sports now is there? As long as there isn't one, DOJ is 100% right. As I have been telling you for weeks, only Congress can fix this, the proposed House settlement was never going to plug the holes. It's got more problems than just this too. I have never tooted the horn of the House settlement as being anything with a prospect of success. I have said from the beginning, ONLY CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS.
Click to expand...
Congress can't "fix" this. They can only confuse it more. And...that still doesn't explain the fantasy that they can include private NIL in any ATE. As I've told you ad nauseum, there are 4 pro sports that have ATEs, and zero if them can interfere in athletes' private NIL.
 
#143
#143
LWSVOL said:
What does on the hook mean? If they are losing money, as most do, how can they come up with the additional revenue? I know eliminating staff and programs can do it but I've not seen anything yet where schools are doing that.. I'm thinking Conf USC, Mountain West, MAC, etc... and many P4 schools will have issues..
Click to expand...
That's kinda what I was wondering as well. Most athletic departments don't make millions of dollars. Certainly some of the bigger football schools will be able to pay out a decent amount in revenue sharing, but what about schools that don't have any revenue to share? Will a separate division of college football be created for schools that do not profit from athletics?
 
#144
#144
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Neither. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm retired after a long career. You must live bogus projection...pfft.

And to bolster my point...
Click to expand...
Go away. I've shown you that in NIL cases, the argument is on the Sherman Act but you keep insisting even Congress can't restrict NIL even with an Antitrust Exemption.

Then why do all the cases use Sherman and Antitrust?

It's okay to be wrong sometimes. I was wrong about this at first but it's VERY clear from Alston that Gorsuch TELLS the NCAA to plead their case to Congress to fix the situation.

No matter what you think about the matter, I'll trust Neil Gorsuch to know what the NCAA should do legally over you.
 
#145
#145
TheDeeble said:
That's kinda what I was wondering as well. Most athletic departments don't make millions of dollars. Certainly some of the bigger football schools will be able to pay out a decent amount in revenue sharing, but what about schools that don't have any revenue to share? Will a separate division of college football be created for schools that do not profit from athletics?
Click to expand...
Don't conflate football profits with athletic department profit and loss. A lot of schools that supposedly show losses for the athletic program have profitable football programs.

Those Olympic sports have expensive scholarships, nutrition, health care, and coaches salaries, and especially more frequent travel to support their non football sports.

The SEC not as much because the footprint is all in the SE.

The ACC and the BIG have literal cost to cost travel. The Big 12 has travel from West Virginia to Arizona and Utah.

Conference USA and the AAC have extensive travel as well. The only other semi-major conference with a regional footprint is the Mountain West...and they have Hawai'i, two time zones away from their closest conference neighbor.
 
#146
#146
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Congress can't "fix" this. They can only confuse it more. And...that still doesn't explain the fantasy that they can include private NIL in any ATE. As I've told you ad nauseum, there are 4 pro sports that have ATEs, and zero if them can interfere in athletes' private NIL.
Click to expand...
Not that it matters to you (as if you could be convinced you have erred if God himself told you), but for the benefit of whoever might be tempted to think you know anything, as I have told you probably 25 times, Congress would not need to address NIL, but they could give the NCAA or whatever governing body they select the ability to enforce rules regarding NIL based on the athletes voluntary participation. It's what they were doing before, and the only reason that was illegal was because it violated anti-trust. Congress can set whatever conditions it wants. Now if you want to argue that Congress isn't going to do this or that (as a matter of politics), that's fine, but you are dead f-ing wrong that Congress doesn't have the power to allow a governing body of college athletics the authority (through an anti-trust exemption) to make enforceable rules regarding NIL, as a condition of voluntary participation. You are 1000% wrong about that, couldn't be more wrong.
 
#147
#147
#148
#148
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Not that it matters to you (as if you could be convinced you have erred if God himself told you), but for the benefit of whoever might be tempted to think you know anything, as I have told you probably 25 times, Congress would not need to address NIL, but they could give the NCAA or whatever governing body they select the ability to enforce rules regarding NIL based on the athletes voluntary participation. It's what they were doing before, and the only reason that was illegal was because it violated anti-trust. Congress can set whatever conditions it wants. Now if you want to argue that Congress isn't going to do this or that (as a matter of politics), that's fine, but you are dead f-ing wrong that Congress doesn't have the power to allow a governing body of college athletics the authority (through an anti-trust exemption) to make enforceable rules regarding NIL, as a condition of voluntary participation. You are 1000% wrong about that, couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Here's an overview of the laws Congress is considering concerning NIL. See if it looks like Congress can restrict NIL to you.

Highlights of the Federal Proposals to Regulate NIL Deals | Littler Mendelson P.C. Highlights of the Federal Proposals to Regulate NIL Deals
Click to expand...

God bless you both, you really are trying. (said with no irony)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Delmar
#149
#149
#150
#150
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Not that it matters to you (as if you could be convinced you have erred if God himself told you), but for the benefit of whoever might be tempted to think you know anything, as I have told you probably 25 times, Congress would not need to address NIL, but they could give the NCAA or whatever governing body they select the ability to enforce rules regarding NIL based on the athletes voluntary participation. It's what they were doing before, and the only reason that was illegal was because it violated anti-trust. Congress can set whatever conditions it wants. Now if you want to argue that Congress isn't going to do this or that (as a matter of politics), that's fine, but you are dead f-ing wrong that Congress doesn't have the power to allow a governing body of college athletics the authority (through an anti-trust exemption) to make enforceable rules regarding NIL, as a condition of voluntary participation. You are 1000% wrong about that, couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...
That's outer space ludicrous. You can't prove your point, so you're projecting instead of factually addressing the issues or the current situation.

Congress absolutely not have that power, and you're the one that's dead wrong. Congress couldn't do that to the four problems yes and they can't do it to college athletes with an ATE or without it.

That "voluntary participation" canard has long since been mythbusted as allowing interference with private NIL. Participation in the pro sports is voluntary, they have ATEs, and those leagues can't do anything about private NIL.

You really should take a botany class so you can hear the difference between the spokes and oranges that you claim are the same things.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top