Recruiting Football Talk VIII

#40,526
#40,526
Orange_Crush said:
You mean where he prefaced it with not being a lawyer, or knowing whether Reggie has a case (i.e. right to the lawsuit), and admits to building his opinion on whether Bush's actions will have a severely negative effect on the NCAA?

To answer his "I'm not a lawyer" comment, the state and federal courts--all the way up to the SCOTUS--have literally taken the stance that the old way was illegal based on Antitrust law, and has been business at the expense of the student athletes. The NCAA has literally been a collection of University Presidents illegally conspiring to set player salaries to zero while they sell television rights to the product for massive profits. I'm not sure how referencing that discussion chanhes that.

Not sure how 6-8 minutes of two boneheads calling Reggie Bush names changes that fact.

I have to say that the irony in that pod was like quicksand. The entire logic is: "Reggie Bush is SO DAMN SELFISH for doing this! Doesn't he know how this may effect that thing I selfishly love?! I'm not concerned with whether the system he played in was legal/ethical. I'm just worried about how it affects how I watch football."

That podcast calling Reggie a "piece of ****", the US Court system a "piece of ****", and I guess our fair business antitrust laws a "piece of ****"... Giving them the voice to argue your point is probably a huge mistake. (Direct quote: "I don't care about the law of the land...")
Click to expand...


You're right. And the legal logic is right.

But change is hard and the way this is evolving just sort of
... sucks, if you are a traditional college football fan.
 
#40,528
#40,528
InVOLuntary said:
Because the Heisman has really never been about the best player in college football. It's a popularity award.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
#40,529
#40,529
lawgator1 said:
You're right. And the legal logic is right.

But change is hard and the way this is evolving just sort of
... sucks, if you are a traditional college football fan.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's been a while. Hope you're well.

Yah. I agree, as I said in the post some took issue with. This is messy right now, but I think that it's a mess we need to deal with until the market finds its equilibrium. T

To be honest, I don't like its current state, but geez... I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea that the NCAA's collusion was at the expense of the athletes when considering what a free(er) market would have offered. I mean, all one has to do is look at what the athletes are getting right now, since the NIL rules have been made ineffective. "At the expense of..." is a pretty clear concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
#40,530
#40,530
Orange_Crush said:
If I did, would it change the facts about the NCAA that you still haven't successfully disputed? I mean, it's a hard sell that corporate antitrust practices aren't "at the expense" of the athletes.

Let's change it up a bit.

All the grocery stores in the US meet quarterly to set minimum prices for food. People need to buy food so have to accept the prices at every grocery store, so they shop knowing the prices when they walk in. That's illegal, and it's literally at the expense of the customers.

Every company that has cybersecurity teams think, "You know what? These folks are expensive and we'd make a lot more profit if we didn't have to pay them as much money. Let's just all agree not to pay more than, say, $15/hr. That's illegal, and it's at the expense of the employees, even if they know that they only be making $15/hr going to work there.

All the credit card companies worry about salary competition among their data analysts, so they all agree not to try to recruit employees from each other. That is illegal and are corporate practices at the expense of the employees.

*Note that these are three examples from the corporate Antitrust training that I have to take every year because the huge corporation that I work for will get brutalized if their people participate in any of this.
Click to expand...
College football is not a grocery store. I’m not sure why that’s a difficult concept.

I don’t need to be lectured about competition law. I understand it, first of all, and secondly, I think it’s beside the point (and, yes, I know some lawyers and judges disagree). Amateur sports are an extracurricular, not a job.

High schools collect gate receipts, games broadcast on TV and streaming sites, etc., too. Not on the same scale, but it’s the same concept in principle as college football, unlike grocery stores. So why don’t you explain to me why middle school athletic departments aren’t violating child labor laws?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoVol, screenthis and TN-POSSUM
#40,532
#40,532
csprig9 said:
Oklahoma seems to be a bunch of crybabies
Click to expand...
My experience, not only from attending two games in Norman, but also 27 years of interaction with the hordes that live in DFW, is the majority of Sooner fans are friendly and knowledgeable and take things in stride…just like our fanbase. We’re allowing a relatively few windbags poison the well water by association…like other fanbases do for our mutants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billy Antrim, InVOLuntary, TennacJed and 7 others
#40,533
#40,533
Orange_Crush said:
Hey, it's been a while. Hope you're well.

Yah. I agree, as I said in the post some took issue with. This is messy right now, but I think that it's a mess we need to deal with until the market finds its equilibrium. T

To be honest, I don't like its current state, but geez... I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea that the NCAA's collusion was at the expense of the athletes when considering what a free(er) market would have offered. I mean, all one has to do is look at what the athletes are getting right now, since the NIL rules have been made ineffective. "At the expense of..." is a pretty clear concept.
Click to expand...
“At the expense of” presupposes a certain framing of the issue, though. Of course one could imagine a world in which schools pay people to play on their sports teams (middle schools included), but I don’t see any problem with a system in which they don’t.

If these guys feel like they are being treated unjustly in such a system, then fine… don’t participate. But — and this was Lehman’s point — of course they participated anyway, because they didn’t actually feel like they were treated unjustly.
 
#40,535
#40,535
drylo said:
College football is not a grocery store. I’m not sure why that’s a difficult concept.

I don’t need to be lectured about competition law. I understand it, first of all, and secondly, I think it’s beside the point (and, yes, I know some lawyers and judges disagree). Amateur sports are an extracurricular, not a job.

High schools collect gate receipts, games broadcast on TV and streaming sites, etc., too. Not on the same scale, but it’s the same concept in principle as college football, unlike grocery stores. So why don’t you explain to me why middle school athletic departments aren’t violating child labor laws?
Click to expand...
No. Grocery stores don't sell television rights for billions of dollars. Organizations that collude to force college football as "extracurricular/not a job" while they profit hugely, is the entire point of the antitrust cases.

Why would I follow your red herring when you choose to blatantly ignore the pertinent points that are on the table. (For the record, if high schooler and middle schoolers wanted to sue for % of gate receipts I'd sit back and thoughtfully consider the arguments made, just as I've done with the NCAA. But I think we can both agree that them not getting a cut of the gate is "at their expense" since "zero" is less than "whatever their cuts would be". )
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
#40,536
#40,536
drylo said:
“At the expense of” presupposes a certain framing of the issue, though. Of course one could imagine a world in which schools pay people to play on their sports teams (middle schools included), but I don’t see any problem with a system in which they don’t.

If these guys feel like they are being treated unjustly in such a system, then fine… don’t participate. But — and this was Lehman’s point — of course they participated anyway, because they didn’t actually feel like they were treated unjustly.
Click to expand...
Then you obviously need to be lectured about competition law.

And your personal desires per athlete paychecks does not change the fact that previous NCAA practices cost athletes what they could have made (and ARE making now) in a free market. Zero is less than lots.

The NCAA is established and powerful enough that no one besides the NCAA can be expected to build a comparable market that would pay athletes, so the "they could just not play in the NCAA, or expect to get to the NFL" argument falls flat. That's why the SCOTUS broke Microsoft up. Because they were using their market share at the customers' expense. The "they could choose not to participate" is literally not a thing in antitrust issues.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
#40,540
#40,540
Orange_Crush said:
No. Grocery stores don't sell television rights for billions of dollars. Organizations that collude to force college football as "extracurricular/not a job" while they profit hugely, is the entire point of the antitrust cases.

Why would I follow your red herring when you choose to blatantly ignore the pertinent points that are on the table. (For the record, if high schooler and middle schoolers wanted to sue for % of gate receipts I'd sit back and thoughtfully consider the arguments made, just as I've done with the NCAA. But I think we can both agree that them not getting a cut of the gate is "at their expense" since "zero" is less than "whatever their cuts would be". )
Click to expand...
You want to talk about market equilibrium… why was nobody ever able to start a viable football league where these super valuable college kids could go make a bunch of money playing football instead of being exploited by universities?

Think about that for a second, and then get back to on “at the expense of the athletes”…
 
#40,543
#40,543
avolation said:
Does a 3 loss UGA team with close win over Kentucky make the playoffs? I don’t think they do. If they lose this weekend the pressure is going to start to build.

I guess my point is that these playoffs feel somewhere in between the nfl and how college used to be.
Click to expand...
All depends on how many Big10, Bi12, ACC teams finish 11-1 or 10-2. Plus does ND finish 10-2 or 9-3. How many SEC teams is TOO MANY in the eyes of the committee to take? 4? 5?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Visidog
#40,545
#40,545
drylo said:
You want to talk about market equilibrium… why was nobody ever able to start a viable football league where these super valuable college kids could go make a bunch of money playing football instead of being exploited by universities?

Think about that for a second, and then get back to on “at the expense of the athletes”…
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS has ruled on that. That part isn't even being argued in the current or previous cases. As mentioned, the NCAA is established and powerful enough that one can't reasonably expect a startup to be competitive. As such, the NCAA is colluding to use its money and market share to create an unfair market. Again, you can see the MS antitrust case as well.
 
#40,547
#40,547
Vfl2407 said:
All depends on how many Big10, Bi12, ACC teams finish 11-1 or 10-2. Plus does ND finish 10-2 or 9-3. How many SEC teams is TOO MANY in the eyes of the committee to take? 4? 5?
Click to expand...
I don’t think a 3-loss anybody out of the SEC is making the playoff. Another conference might have a 3-loss champion, but that’s all but impossible for an SEC team.

Barring a weird result like we almost saw in Lexington, a 2-loss UGA would have beaten Clemson and 2 of Bama, Ole Miss, Texas, and Tennessee. Its only losses would have been to pretty highly-ranked teams that are probably in the playoff. There’s no telling for sure and the head-to-head permutations matter a ton, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that team made the playoff.

One way or another, I doubt anybody talks about a close win against Kentucky again after tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vfl2407
#40,548
#40,548
Orange. said:
Heup did say he anticipated Campbell and Heard being back for Arky. FYI.

Where did that quote originate?
Click to expand...
Love to know if these words have the same definition to CJH as they do in the dictionary:
Anticipate (them to be back)
Expect (them to be back)

He will NEVER say that a player
WILL be back or they WILL PLAY or they WILL START.
That just won’t happen.
So I no longer “expect” or “anticipate” that it will happen.
I’ve stopped stressing and obsessing over it. 😤 well, mostly I have…lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsagain
#40,549
#40,549
jave36 said:
No, the entire sport is as good as its been in a long time. There is better parity now that there has been in decades. Multiple great games every week. No idea who is going to win it all this year. It's amazing. You isolate a couple negatives and act like they offset the mountain of positives.
Click to expand...
IMG_2367.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy’s Bandit, screenthis and jave36
#40,550
#40,550
drylo said:
You want to talk about market equilibrium… why was nobody ever able to start a viable football league where these super valuable college kids could go make a bunch of money playing football instead of being exploited by universities?

Think about that for a second, and then get back to on “at the expense of the athletes”…
Click to expand...
Also, I think you may gain some clarity if you stopped thinking of "the NCAA" as a single thing and begin to consider it for what it is: A collection of separate businesses that are colluding to price-set salaries.

The SCOTUS literally stated that nowhere else in this country would a group of businesses be allowed to do that, and they have depositions on file from present and former athletes that the collusion was at their own expense. The NCAA doesn't even argue against the fact that they are a group of individual businesses colluding to price set salaries, or that they do so at the expense of the athletes. They just claim, as I guess you do, that college athletics depending on such collusions at the expense of the athletes is necessary to the business model. The SCOTUS opinion filleted them and told them not to come back in front of them with that stupid mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jave36
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top