Recruiting Football Talk VIII

[jave36]

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?

It's not the same concept at all. There is a massive net negative in revenue in middle school football. They're not coming anywhere close to recouping their costs with the revenue. Nobody is paying the school millions of dollars for the rights to broadcast the middle school game on TV. There is no profit in middle school football. There is a massive net positive revenue in college football. There is massive profit in college football.

Furthermore, nobody in the legal world has said colleges have to pay athletes or share revenue with the athletes. They just said colleges can't prohibit athletes helping to generate all that revenue from using their NIL to generate revenue for themselves.

 

[JohnnyD1024]

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's not the same concept at all. There is a massive net negative in revenue in middle school football. They're not coming anywhere close to recouping their costs with the revenue. Nobody is paying the school millions of dollars for the rights to broadcast the middle school game on TV. There is no profit in middle school football. There is a massive net positive revenue in college football. There is massive profit in college football.

Furthermore, nobody in the legal world has said colleges have to pay athletes or share revenue with the athletes. They just said colleges can't prohibit athletes helping to generate all that revenue from using their NIL to generate revenue for themselves.

Good point. No one is saying they have to pay athletes, just that they can't all collude to prevent anyone from paying athletes.

 

[PlanetVolunteer]

Pretty impressive since they've been good a while now

 

[GVol1966]

If Bob said he agreed with an NIL deal with the “School “ then he’d be confused.
Schools aren’t allowed to be making NIL deals.

 

[drylo]

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.

SCOTUS ruled on what?

The legal landscape here is a huge mess, and I don’t really know how we escape this crazy web of trying to apply antitrust law, labor law, etc., to this very unique situation where Title IX is already a vexing complication before even accounting for any of this other stuff.

At the end of the day, it’s amateur sports, and I, for one, am happy to allow that to be a thing that continues to exist.

But if you think it is (and should be) illegal at the college level, I challenge you to distinguish high school sports… or any other youth sports.

 

[jave36]

SCOTUS ruled on what?

The legal landscape here is a huge mess, and I don’t really know how we escape this crazy web of trying to apply antitrust law, labor law, etc., to this very unique situation where Title IX is already a vexing complication before even accounting for any of this other stuff.

At the end of the day, it’s amateur sports, and I, for one, am happy to allow that to be a thing that continues to exist.

But if you think it is (and should be) illegal at the college level, I challenge you to distinguish high school sports… or any other youth sports.

It's been decades since this was true amateur sports. It was only amateur on onenaode, the athletes. It wasn't at all amateur sports on the other side, the NCAA and universities.

I'll never understand why people so passionately try to preserve a system that is so one sided. You desperately want the NCAA akd universities to keep all the money and make sure those athletes responsible for generating so much of that revenue get the most infinitesimal share via a scholarship akd room/board. Why do you love the NCAA and university administrators ao much? Why do you care about them staying filthy rich?

 

[engineerVOL]

View attachment 681283

 

[jave36]

100,000 seats times $80 average ticket (low estimate) times 7 games is $56 million. That is roughly 25% of the revenue brought in last year. That’s definitely noticeable.

Plus the many millions more made off concessions, parking, souvenirs.

 

[Orange_Crush]

SCOTUS ruled on what?

The legal landscape here is a huge mess, and I don’t really know how we escape this crazy web of trying to apply antitrust law, labor law, etc., to this very unique situation where Title IX is already a vexing complication before even accounting for any of this other stuff.

At the end of the day, it’s amateur sports, and I, for one, am happy to allow that to be a thing that continues to exist.

The SCOTUS has already addressed the question per why not expect someone else to create a system where athletes can get paid. It is unreasonable to expect a startup to be competitive against the market share that the NCAA already has. Just see the XFL, USFL, etc against the NFL. Just see MS and why they were split up on antitrust grounds. MS was using their market share to create an unfair market, and the feds broke them up.

And with all due respect... I'm not trying to be an ass, but... I don't care what you personally prefer or are willing to "allow". I made a statement that the NCAAs collusion was at the expense of the athletes. It was you that took issue with that, and it's been a crazy, ridiculous discussion trying to prove the obvious. Your personal preferences have no bearing whatsoever on antitrust law, the facts of collusion in the NCAA or whether the market they created prevented college athletes from profiting from their work.

I care about fair markets. Why do you care about the NCAA and their member institutions getting filthy rich at the expense of those giving their bodies up to create the profits? Better yet, why are you referencing the (filthy rich) expense that the system cost the athletes while simultaneously arguing that it wasn't at their expense? That seems an untenable position for a rational person to take.

 

[Enki_Amenra]

100,000 seats times $80 average ticket (low estimate) times 7 games is $56 million. That is roughly 25% of the revenue brought in last year. That’s definitely noticeable.

I should've said profit free seats. That would cut the price in half.

Concessions and everything else stay the same. Either way, that's not the point. The point is that fans are being jabbed at every opportunity. They should do something to make the fans feel like they are getting a break somewhere. They could do it easily and never notice it.

$60k in concessions coupons handed out to random fans as they enter or when they buy their tickets. This would actually probably pay for itself. People go to concessions with a $15 coupon and still spend an extra $25-$30 to cover the full cost of what they buy, when they may have not bought concessions to begin with. May not completely pay for itself, but wouldn't be the full $60k.

 

[drylo]

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.

I am 100% with you on thinking of the NCAA that way. It drives me crazy when people talk about the NCAA as “a single thing.”

And, yes, that’s what creates the competition law hook. And I understand the reading of the Sherman Act that implicates the NCAA, but I think it should be obvious that the Sherman Act was not intended to make amateur sports per se illegal. From a statutory construction perspective, I think the original intent is relevant to how we read the statute, but nevertheless, we could solve it by amending the Sherman Act, and maybe we should.

Like Teddy Lehman, I care more about “what’s right” (i.e. in my words, good policy) than about “the law of the land” (i.e. how a court has interpreted the Sherman Act at present).

 

[screenthis]

It's been decades since this was true amateur sports. It was only amateur on onenaode, the athletes. It wasn't at all amateur sports on the other side, the NCAA and universities.

I'll never understand why people so passionately try to preserve a system that is so one sided. You desperately want the NCAA akd universities to keep all the money and make sure those athletes responsible for generating so much of that revenue get the most infinitesimal share via a scholarship akd room/board. Why do you love the NCAA and university administrators ao much? Why do you care about them staying filthy rich?

All points could be true and yet, I still prefer the way College Sports existed in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there needed to be corrections where players weren't struggling financially. But, as College Football becomes more and more 'business like', I tend to like it less. Personal Preference.

 

[drylo]

It's been decades since this was true amateur sports. It was only amateur on onenaode, the athletes. It wasn't at all amateur sports on the other side, the NCAA and universities.

I'll never understand why people so passionately try to preserve a system that is so one sided. You desperately want the NCAA akd universities to keep all the money and make sure those athletes responsible for generating so much of that revenue get the most infinitesimal share via a scholarship akd room/board. Why do you love the NCAA and university administrators ao much? Why do you care about them staying filthy rich?

I don’t, at all. I care about amateur sports continuing to exist.

 

[sutro]

oh boy…..PEANUTS

This seems like a fabulous idea!
UGA/bama is the perfect game to test out how the elephant responds to crowd noise and the occasional firework.
And to think we wanted a meteor. This could be so much more interesting!

 

[peaygolf]

Black lids with the Sweet Logo for Sat

 

[Orange_Crush]

I am 100% with you on thinking of the NCAA that way. It drives me crazy when people talk about the NCAA as “a single thing.”

And, yes, that’s what creates the competition law hook. And I understand the reading of the Sherman Act that implicates the NCAA, but I think it should be obvious that the Sherman Act was not intended to make amateur sports per se illegal. From a statutory construction perspective, I think the original intent is relevant to how we read the statute, but nevertheless, we could solve it by amending the Sherman Act, and maybe we should.

Like Teddy Lehman, I care more about “what’s right” (i.e. in my words, good policy) than about “the law of the land” (i.e. how a court has interpreted the Sherman Act at present).

In our pluralistic society, it's hard to fall back on individual relative ethics. I don't think we'll solve that here. And for the record, I've never needed or asked you to agree with me. I'm just befuddled that we've spent two pages debating whether the old system cost the student athletes. It's surreal, actually.

The "amateurism as a definitive part of the business model" was the NCAA's argument to the SCOTUS, who laughed them off in one of the court opinions. Basically, the SCOTUS told them not to come back with that stupid ****. They get no exclusion. If they want one, go get the legislators to do exactly what you proposed, and give them one.

But again... The old system was at the expense of the athletes. That is undeniable. That was the statement you took issue with. That's what's been debated, as far as I'm concern. I don't care to try anymore to convince you of the obvious.

Take care and I hope you have an excellent day, amigo. Peace.

 

[Orangeburst]

So you DO eat cats!

Glitch is Haitian?

 

[Enki_Amenra]

Glitch is Haitian?

Check his papers!

 

[pismonque]

This seems like a fabulous idea!
UGA/bama is the perfect game to test out how the elephant responds to crowd noise and the occasional firework.
And to think we wanted a meteor. This could be so much more interesting!

lol yeah, and if you think horses and wagons leave divots on a field....

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don’t, at all. I care about amateur sports continuing to exist.

Amateur sports would still exist. Every university has the option to start intramural football.

It will suck. That won't matter because it wouldn't be broadcast, because it sucks, so you wouldn't see it anyway. It isn't simply "amateur sports" that you want. You want all of the benefits of this specific entertainment industry with the talent getting screwed out of a share of the profits.

 

[drylo]

In our pluralistic society, it's hard to fall back on individual relative ethics. I don't think we'll solve that here. And for the record, I've never needed or asked you to agree with me. I'm just befuddled that we've spent two pages debating whether the old system cost the student athletes. It's surreal, actually.

The "amateurism as a definitive part of the business model" was the NCAA's argument to the SCOTUS, who laughed them off in one of the court opinions. Basically, the SCOTUS told them not to come back with that stupid ****. They get no exclusion. If they want one, go get the legislators to do exactly what you proposed, and give them one.

But again... The old system was at the expense of the athletes. That is undeniable. That was the statement you took issue with. That's what's been debated, as far as I'm concern. I don't care to try anymore to convince you of the obvious.

Take care and I hope you have an excellent day, amigo. Peace.

It’s only undeniable in comparison to an alternate universe in which they can walk into court and accuse the universities of behaving illegally for offering non-compensated athletic teams as an extracurricular activity.

By any other measure, the “old system” was amazing for the athletes. As Teddy Lehman said, an opportunity these guys dreamed of their whole lives.

 

[ViperVol86]

This is sickening

View attachment 681167

So is this lol

 

[JP_UT_O&W]

• Tennessee’s defense has stepped up: There were concerns about the Volunteers defense earlier in the year, but the unit now ranks first in the nation in EPA allowed per play.​

​

Surprise: Tennessee’s defense​

Of the eight Tennessee defenders who earned a 65-plus PFF grade in 2023, only one — James Pearce Jr. — returned this season, leaving the Volunteers with some defensive question marks outside their star pass rusher.

After four games, however, Tennessee has silenced most of those doubts. The Volunteers lead the nation in EPA per play allowed (-0.528) and rank second in yards per play allowed (3.3), all while securing wins over two ranked teams, N.C. State and Oklahoma.

Surprisingly, they’ve achieved this without much contribution from Pearce, who has posted just a 63.1 pass-rushing grade. If he can find his form, Tennessee’s defense could become even more formidable.

College football's biggest surprises and disappointments after four weeks

We’re a quarter of the way through the 2024 college football season, and while it's still early for sweeping conclusions, plenty of surprising storylines have emerged.

www.pff.com

 

[JP_UT_O&W]

Disappointment: Oklahoma’s entire offense​

Oklahoma has been nothing short of a complete disaster offensively. The Sooners hold the second-lowest graded offense in the Power Four (59.7) and rank third-worst in EPA per play (-0.182).

No matter how you break it down, the offensive struggles only become more glaring.

Oklahoma’s offensive grading this season​

Area	PFF Grade	FBS Rank (Out of 134 teams)	Power Four Rank (Out of 68 teams)
Passing	62.1	105th	60th
Rushing	65.5	125th	68th
Receiving	58.3	121st	66th
Pass-Blocking	61.3	102nd	57th
Run-Blocking	54.0	116th	64th

While Oklahoma faced Tennessee's elite defense, its other three games came against Temple, Houston and Tulane — all three rank outside of the top 60 in team defense grade, while the Owls and Green Wave aren’t even among the top 100.

It’s worth noting that Oklahoma’s offense has been plagued by injuries, particularly in the receiving corps. However, the Sooners must elevate their play with the roster they have, especially with tougher SEC matchups looming on the schedule.

Oklahoma has benched former five-star quarterback Jackson Arnold for true freshman Michael Hawkins Jr. But unless Hawkins turns into the next Caleb Williams, it’s unlikely he will be able to salvage this offense.

College football's biggest surprises and disappointments after four weeks

We’re a quarter of the way through the 2024 college football season, and while it's still early for sweeping conclusions, plenty of surprising storylines have emerged.

www.pff.com