(12-17-2019 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 10:41 PM)chester Wrote:  

Quote:Earlier this month, Senators Chris Murphy (D – Conn) and Mitt Romney (R – Utah) formed a bipartisan working group to review issues related to student-athlete economic rights. A potential result of their work is legislation to provide a national framework for name, image, and likeness compensation.

This article outlines the benefits that would accrue to college athletics if lawmakers also developed federal legislation to limit excessive spending on salaries and facilities...

Quote:...It is almost always in the personal job-security interest of athletics directors to pay highly popular coaches whatever it takes to retain them, lest they be blamed by influential constituents for allowing a beloved coach to get away...

Blue's ADU piece reminds me of something Bowlsby said last week. (5:00) He said the underbelly of the NIL discussion is the comparison of coaches' salaries to what players get, acknowledging that "commissioners make a lot of money too". He said "The escalation of salaries is real" and "if we don't find a way to slow it down and maybe slow down the proliferation of expansive facilities, we're going to find ourselves with a $20M coach before long..." He added that "ADs and presidents are really not capable of saying 'no' to a popular coach."

Bowlsby did not specify how they might achieve that but...I doubt Blue is the only one who wants what he proposes.

That's just helping to form clear points of demarcation for a future split. It's just one of many. The heavily subsidized versus those subsidized by about 25% versus those subsidized less than 20% are easy points of separation between the bottom feeders of the FBS, the true G5's and the P conferences. State budget cuts are going to eventually hone in on subsidized athletics for campuses that can't support even what amounts to the money making sports at other schools. That will form a point of separation that is already seeing widening gap between the G5 and those who can't keep up. Paying for image sand opting to pay what it takes to retain coaches will see a growing divide between 25% subsidized G5's that can't afford further escalation and the P programs.

The future tiers will be decided economically. And if you can't afford to play at some level you won't be expected to compete in it but you also won't be able to claim discrimination by exclusion. It's one thing to be shut out. It's quite another to not be able to afford it. Network money is driving that gap wider now and it will accelerate. Those who invest in a better product will get the most money. The rest will be filler.

And you know something, this debate will be healthy for the country as a whole. We have class distinctions in every facet of society from what subdivision one lives in to what kind a car one drives to what brand of clothes you wear, and long ago to what kind of University you attend. The football divide is only going to cement the reality of it and then the nation is going to have to grasp reality. If you can't afford something your life is better off without it. Once the nation learns that lesson the personal debt crisis will start to subside, people will once again live within their means, and they may once again actually start to save which is the only behavior besides getting a better education that can help most vault into the next tier of revenue.

Nobody promises you equal results (which is where we are stuck now within our national insanity) just an equal chance (which is not to say your chances aren't weighted, they are). But we are one of the few nations in which one can change his/her status with determination, hard work, and a little bit of luck. And once we grasp that again and get over Disney's version of fairy tale life the better off we'll all be. And truth be told the Cal Davis AD Mr. Blue only wishes he had a coaching salary problem. His gripe is nothing more than sour grapes born of envy.

JR, I do hope that the P conferences are gearing to split. It's silly to have a gazillion programs competing for the same national championships, especially when there is massive disparity between the revenues of some and the revenues of others. However, if by "split" you mean an NCAA exit, I don't think that the Ps want to do that at this time. I don't think that will happen until after the courts require the allowance of player pay or until the Ps are otherwise compelled to pay players because of some successful outside competition that beats them to the punch and eats into their revenue. (Possible example)

I think the NCAA is planning something rotten behind the scenes....

I've seen three or for interviews of Mark Emmert since the current NIL debate began. In each one, he purposely mischaracterized NIL bills, pretending that they require NCAA schools to lineup endorsement deals for their athletes. In reality, there are no NIL bills that require schools to do that and there are no NIL bills that prevent the NCAA from prohibiting the same. Emmert does this so that he can obfuscate the point by bringing up "employer/employee relationships" between schools and athletes, knowing that there is less public support for employing athletes than there is for letting them make money from 3rd parties. The NCAA as a whole, including the P schools, remain adamantly opposed to direct pay. No surprise.

Just yesterday, Dec 17, Emmert flat out lied to an audience, saying that "the Ninth Circuit has said 'anything student athletes receive has to be tethered to education.'" That isn't what the Ninth Circuit said... Legally, NCAA schools are perfectly free to pay athletes in ways that nothing at all to do with education. What the Ninth Circuit said in O'Bannon 2 was, essentially, "if you DO pay athletes in ways untethered to education, you will lose your claim on amateurism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRj8zrM6...e=youtu.be

Emmert went on to say that "legal precedent" is partial to why the NCAA is conversing with Congress.

Later in that same interview, Emmert was asked what the NCAA wants from Congress and whether it is seeking an antitrust exemption. Emmert didn't offer specifics in his answer and he didn't deny that the NCAA would seek an antitrust exemption. He did say that "the Board and I have put together a group of university presidents...to try and craft exactly what that is over this holiday period going into our national meeting in January."

Okay, great. Except, back in October, the NCAA gave itself until January 2021 to adapt new NIL rules. Now the NCAA is seeking to fast-track things through federal legislation. What changed between October and today?

I'll tell y'all what changed. A couple of weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit announced that it will hear oral arguments on Alston in early March 2020. That same court took 6 months to decide O'bannon after oral arguments, and the approximate might be expected for Alston. Of course, the NCAA appealed and wants the district court's ruling on overturned.. That's not going to happen. The best the Cartel can hope for is that the Ninth doesn't grant plaintiffs broader relief – an injunction against all NCAA compensation caps. This might actually happen, as the district court (Judge Wilken) rightly pointed out in her ruling that the NCAA already pays some athletes in ways that are untethered to education. (You guys see the connection here?) Example: some schools dig into their SAF funds to pay athletes' disability and/or loss of value insurance premiums. Seriously, no one can claim with a straight face that paid LOV premiums are "tethered to education." What's more, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas will be part of the Alston 2 panel. Judge Thomas is the one holdover from O'Bannon 2 and he is also the dissenter of that case – the one who would have allowed direct NIL-related payments to athletes, payments that would not have been related to education. So..

Anyway, I'm starting to think that the NCAA – the NCAA in all its arrogance and continual disregard for antitrust law – will actually seek an antitrust exemption from Congress

Like maybe "Hey! We'll let P5 athletes profit from their NIL in any way they like. Just give us that exemption." lol