(10-07-2019 10:01 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 07:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The "concern" about booster abuse is a purely-fabricated one, it is not a societal concern at all. As I explained, it exists only in the world of the NCAA. There is zero of societal concern at stake if Houston boosters pay recruits to play football at Houston. None, doesn't matter at all.

The notion that a congressman or state legislator should be crafting legislation that takes a non-concern seriously just doesn't make any sense. It would be harmful to do so, as that would shroud the NCAA's private concern in the color of law.

In this case California has said that its schools won't abide by an NCAA rule any longer, and they are perfectly within their right to do that, at least for the public schools.

If there is zero societal concern over third party pay for play, then why is the FBI investigating it?

What exactly is the FBI investigating? They don't care about NCAA rules, just federal crimes such as bribery, fraud, and tax violations.

As for California, they aren't obligated to have their schools follow NCAA rules. They own the schools, the public ones, not the NCAA.

The California law also says that the NCAA cannot punish or kick out the the schools for ignoring the NCAA NIL rules. Now, California is perfectly within their rights to order their school to ignore NCAA rules. By the same token, California has absolutely no power to dictate how the NCAA reacts to those rules violations. If the NCAA wants to bar those schools from the postseason--or kick them out of the NCAA completely---there is absolutely nothing the California can do about it. The power of the California legislature ends at the California border. Only federal law crosses the border. It would be like the Texas legislature passing a law requiring the Pac12 to make Houston a member. Good luck with that. Thats why I say part of the law might remain standing after a challenge---but the law has zero chance of surviving a challenge 100% intact. Not to mention, while the legislature clearly can dictate terms to the state schools---Im not so sure the law will hold up with respect to private schools like USC and Stanford.

Hypothetically, if the NCAA attempted to ban Cali schools then California would sue the heck out of the NCAA, and maybe win. I cannot say from personal knowledge, but Marc Edelman, a law professor who appeared at one of the hearings on SB 206, says that banning Cali schools would constitute a group boycott, illegal under federal law. Here's the most recent of two or three Forbes articles he's written about it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman...t-of-1984/

The head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division recently invited Ramogi Huma to speak at a workshop on competition in labor markets. Huma said the same thing: group boycott. (See here.) Huma's timely talk at the DOJ may indicate that the DOJ agrees that the NCAA is subject to that particular element of the law.

Those attacks are based in federal law. My point is that California law cant decree anything once it reaches the border of California. The NCAA has already faced that issue before with Tarkanian.

That said, my hesitation about outright booting the Cali teams from the NCAA would come from the 1984 Oklahoma Regents vs NCAA decision. Thats why I think the NCAA will take the more conservative road and simply ban them from post season play. That's basically the same penalty that every other team guilty of that infraction gets and that penalty has already been successfully defended in court on multiple occasions. It would seem to be a more reasonable and proportional act that would maintain the integrity of the league while doing as little damage as possible to the schools (who are frankly just caught in the middle). I seriously doubt any attack on a post season ban would be successful.