(05-30-2020 07:12 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Asking fo legislation based just on a concept is inadequate. Legislators will want to know costs, who pays, what are the parameters, and how such is administered, and how the policies are enforced. This could release antitrust suits, which is a matter for the courts.

You have factions saying the NCAA governing this is inappropriate, while the P5 isn't fully separate and is not comprehensively organized enough to deliver unity and consensus for such a profound undertaking. They wànt Congress to fix the endeavor for them.

Congress has power with the federal military academies, not so much in dictating to state and private colleges in terms of new programs (athletics) for student employment/compensations. Certainly the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor need to weigh-in. Eugene Scalia at Labor may provide an opinion. Good luck finding a brilliant response from Betsy DeVos.

With all due respect---none of that has one thing to do with NIL legislation. I also would have to say NIL legislation has certainly passed the "concept: stage. Its actual state legislation in several places---none of which currently matches one another. There needs to be a uniform national standard or the patchwork of differing state NIL laws will cause more issues than they solves.

(05-30-2020 11:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 07:12 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Asking fo legislation based just on a concept is inadequate. Legislators will want to know costs, who pays, what are the parameters, and how such is administered, and how the policies are enforced. This could release antitrust suits, which is a matter for the courts.

You have factions saying the NCAA governing this is inappropriate, while the P5 isn't fully separate and is not comprehensively organized enough to deliver unity and consensus for such a profound undertaking. They wànt Congress to fix the endeavor for them.

Congress has power with the federal military academies, not so much in dictating to state and private colleges in terms of new programs (athletics) for student employment/compensations. Certainly the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor need to weigh-in. Eugene Scalia at Labor may provide an opinion. Good luck finding a brilliant response from Betsy DeVos.

With all due respect---none of that has one thing to do with NIL legislation. I also would have to say NIL legislation has certainly passed the "concept: stage. Its actual state legislation in several places---none of which currently matches one another. There needs to be a uniform national standard or the patchwork of differing state NIL laws will cause more issues than they solves.

It is an opinion/observation, AC. The real initiative is an appeal for federal legislation to mandate states comply with the rules of an independent organization of which membership is voluntary. What is being asked is to put a stamp of approval on requiring compensation to what, in practice, would ultimately be essentially mercenary players. Schools that choose not to do such, due to the lack of resources or being repulsed by the idea, become excluded. I do agree there needs to be Congressional hearings to deliver exposure.

I don't know that P5 schools are looking to avoid paying players for NIL so much as they want consistency state-to-state.

The worst-case scenario is for one state - say, Connecticut - to have radically different laws which result in a huge advantage for any FBS team(s) which happen to reside in that state. It could theoretically skew the results so much that a school like UConn might win the national championship...

(05-30-2020 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Power Five conference commissioners are asking Congress to move forward with federal legislation regarding compensation for college athletes.

I think Congress is likely to ignore this. They seemingly have more important things to attend to.

Since when doe Congress worry about important stuff.

(05-30-2020 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 09:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think Congress is likely to ignore this. They seemingly have more important things to attend to.

It will just get tacked on to some other Bill.

I doubt it, because this will be contentious, requiring lots of hearings and debate. Congress is not going to have any stomach for that, IMO.

But we shall see.

I do think the commissioners need to be very careful what they wish for. Congress could very well respond by declaring that, as a matter of law, all scholarship athletes are employees of the school.

Their nightmare is 50 different state laws. And that is starting to happen

Not really. Most all of the dozens of state bills introduced this year are materially equal to California's law in regard to how the would affect NCAA schools and athletes. No more, no less.

I'll warrant that if the NCAA were to adopt NIL rules that put it in compliance with Cali's law today, no other state would even bother passing a law.

To be sure, Colorado's law — the only other state NIL law to date — is more restrictive than Cali's, but that's because the Pac-12 and local NCAA schools made it so by influencing supportive/gullible/ignorant legislators. Florida's probable-soon-to-be law is more restrictive than Cali's, but here again that's because local NCAA schools made it so.

(05-30-2020 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Power Five conference commissioners are asking Congress to move forward with federal legislation regarding compensation for college athletes.

I think Congress is likely to ignore this. They seemingly have more important things to attend to.

Yes. And to begin with, there's only a handful of Washington politicians who have taken a vocal interest.

(05-30-2020 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 01:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It will just get tacked on to some other Bill.

I doubt it, because this will be contentious, requiring lots of hearings and debate. Congress is not going to have any stomach for that, IMO.

But we shall see.

Why would it be contentious? There is mass agreement on both sides of the aisle. Heck, even the NCAA has largely agreed with the premise. Just need a universal law for the entire nation. Given the political divisions we see in Washington these days, this is as close to chip shot as you can get for national legislation in the current environment. It will just end up being a rider tacked on to a more important bill.

Because the kind of law the NCAA wants may be very different from what players want.

It is, and therein lies the justification for a breakaway. Congress however cannot afford to come down on the wrong side of this issue so they will side with the P5. It's an election year and they need to be pro the little guy, particularly in light of recent events in Minnesota. But then that's why they call it politics.

And Frank is correct, the NCAA has little support in reality.

Have you seen the P5's wishlist? (Page 3) It's no less restrictive than anything suggested by the NCAA's NIL work group and it more restrictive than any proposed state law save Connecticut's — which terrible proposal is now (thankfully) dead on the vine with the adjournment sine die of CT's current state legislature.

The P5 does not want a free or even near-free 3rd party NIL market for P5 athletes and they certainly don't want to be in a position where they must or even can pay any players any more than they already do.

(06-05-2020 12:28 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Power Five conference commissioners are asking Congress to move forward with federal legislation regarding compensation for college athletes.

I think Congress is likely to ignore this. They seemingly have more important things to attend to.

Yes. And to begin with, there's only a handful of Washington politicians who have taken a vocal interest.

Whats important is its only a handful of Senators. that care. The fact that they are Senators is an important distinction. There are only 100 of those and the Senate is a place where almost every single bill passes by a margin of one or two votes. A block or 3-5 votes can easily get something like that added to another bill---especially since you have made it clear that none of the other Senators or Congressmen really cares one way or another about the issue. In other words, its a painless throw away concession for everyone else.

(06-05-2020 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 12:28 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Power Five conference commissioners are asking Congress to move forward with federal legislation regarding compensation for college athletes.

I think Congress is likely to ignore this. They seemingly have more important things to attend to.

Yes. And to begin with, there's only a handful of Washington politicians who have taken a vocal interest.

Whats important is its only a handful of Senators. that care. The fact that they are Senators is an important distinction. There are only 100 of those and the Senate is a place where almost every single bill passes by a margin of one or two votes. A block or 3-5 votes can easily get something like that added to another bill---especially since you have made it clear that none of the other Senators or Congressmen really cares one way or another about the issue. In other words, its a painless throw away concession for everyone else.

Well, as we know, what the P5 are really after above all is the antitrust exemption they'd need to legally continue to fix the price for labor since the courts are increasingly finding that American college athletes are, indeed, American and subject to the same protections as you and I.

The most vocally interested US senator is CT's Chris Murphy and he is, IMO, more likely to push for a law that explicitly states that P5 schools may not collude to fix the price for labor, neither through education-related benefits nor non-education-related benefits than he is to grant them the antitrust exemption they'd need to legally fix the price for labor for ever and evermore.

While I disagree with the P5's stance, from their point of view, it does make sense to hurl that Hail Mary. Shoot for the moon, as they say. Good luck, lol

(06-05-2020 12:42 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 01:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I doubt it, because this will be contentious, requiring lots of hearings and debate. Congress is not going to have any stomach for that, IMO.

But we shall see.

Why would it be contentious? There is mass agreement on both sides of the aisle. Heck, even the NCAA has largely agreed with the premise. Just need a universal law for the entire nation. Given the political divisions we see in Washington these days, this is as close to chip shot as you can get for national legislation in the current environment. It will just end up being a rider tacked on to a more important bill.

Because the kind of law the NCAA wants may be very different from what players want.

It is, and therein lies the justification for a breakaway. Congress however cannot afford to come down on the wrong side of this issue so they will side with the P5. It's an election year and they need to be pro the little guy, particularly in light of recent events in Minnesota. But then that's why they call it politics.

And Frank is correct, the NCAA has little support in reality.

Have you seen the P5's wishlist? (Page 3) It's no less restrictive than anything suggested by the NCAA's NIL work group and it more restrictive than any proposed state law save Connecticut's — which terrible proposal is now (thankfully) dead on the vine with the adjournment sine die of CT's current state legislature.

The P5 does not want a free or even near-free 3rd party NIL market for P5 athletes and they certainly don't want to be in a position where they must or even can pay any players any more than they already do.

I take that bit back. What the P5 wants is actually more restrictive than what the NCAA's work group has suggested. That group has never said anything about denying freshmen through their first term, like the P5 are begging of Congress. That's almost UConn-level nonsense:

Quote:UConn was asked to provide suggestions on what model legislation could look like. We are appreciative of the Committee’s efforts to include some of our recommendations in SB 306...In order to preserve the student-athlete experience and prohibit unfair recruiting practices, we believe it is essential that student-athletes not be compensated for their NIL until after they have participated in collegiate athletics for a full year.

(05-31-2020 06:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 08:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  "The Power Five conference commissioners are asking Congress to move forward with federal legislation regarding compensation for college athletes.

I think Congress is likely to ignore this. They seemingly have more important things to attend to.

Since when doe Congress worry about important stuff.

Hey, now, Federal Buildings and Post Offices aren't going to name themselves!

Anyway, it's a simple matter of Pro's and Con's ... who better to be an enemy of Progress than Congress?

Congress is full of dummies, no doubt. But perhaps less so than state legislatures.

I think that if Congress were to ever seriously take up this matter (highly doubtful), the reincarnated ex-slavers who control college sports today will be for...an eye-opening, wallet-opening experience.

Here's a neat response from plaintiffs' lawyers in the latest antitrust suit to the P5's request to Congress to exempt them from a law that the the NCAA has violated for decades:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...71049.html