College Sports (Football)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#404      
SoCal Illini
the juiceman cometh said:
The previous status quo only seems more "pure" because people got used to it. Athletes and their families were getting paid under the table, coaches and programs were regularly getting wins and championships vacated, shoe company executives were going to jail over college basketball related fraud. If this is a "hybrid pro/amateur model" what do you call that? A "hybrid amateur/RICO model?"

College sports will survive. It will be different. People will get used to it. The previous status quo was unsustainable and the big mistake the NCAA made was not voluntarily making changes sooner.
Click to expand...
There will be interest, but I think the overall $ pool at some point will start to shrink.

Think a Las Vegas-type fall.
 
#406      
BretMyBeachHouse
STLini25 said:
I am an attorney who worked on (small part) all the NCAA major cases that happened in the last five years.

Again, I’m not arguing whether it’s correct or not just it’s at a minimum high risk to take away student athletes freedom and a certainty the NCAA are defending a $1B lawsuit if they continued.

I’m not positive all of the claims but two of them would have been an unreasonable restriction (1) on earning income (I understand your point) and (2) personal freedoms/enjoyment.

Very few (if any) analogies are going to be relevant as student athletes are a unique class and have already won multiple multi billion dollar lawsuits.

The point isn’t really debating the merits as they are debatable as you point out. The point is the NCAA was at a legitimate risk (and certainly were going to be sued) and choose allowing freedom rather than restricting student athletes. I think you can agree if that was on legal advice (and it certainly was) it was a wise decision on behalf of the NCAA.

When the courts repeatedly gives you billion dollar judgements for restricting student athletes, you stop restricting student athletes.
Click to expand...
This is so far removed from the cases the ncaa lost. Those were about athletes losing the ability to earn money for their talent. This is just about their lifestyle

So if an athlete sues over curfew then the school just gives in?

Ncaa has practice restrictions. The ncaa caves at the first hint of a lawsuit?

All sorts of employment contracts have stipulations regarding these types of things. People routinely get fired for these types of things.

No way the ncaa would have lost this case. No way it would have even come up.
 
#407      
BalloonsTheElephant
Battle89 said:
OK, make that twice in one week I have agreed with the SEC. Unprecedented territory.
Click to expand...
I like the 24 team option because it makes it more fun, not because I think 24 will ever win it all. The talent disparity between 1 to 10 is bigger than 10 to 24. It would make for more nationally interesting football that otherwise is occupied by actually meaningless bowl games.

The biggest issue I have is that you are now at 5 additional games for someone to win, which basically an NFL season minus playoffs. It also starts interfering with NFL playoffs as well. I want to see it, but I don't think we will go past 16 for a while.
 
#408      
STLini25
BretMyBeachHouse said:
This is so far removed from the cases the ncaa lost. Those were about athletes losing the ability to earn money for their talent. This is just about their lifestyle

So if an athlete sues over curfew then the school just gives in?

Ncaa has practice restrictions. The ncaa caves at the first hint of a lawsuit?

All sorts of employment contracts have stipulations regarding these types of things. People routinely get fired for these types of things.

No way the ncaa would have lost this case. No way it would have even come up.
Click to expand...
I’ll just I 100% disagree with you. I don’t think your legal opinions on antitrust law is strong. And you equating employment law with antitrust law is incorrect.
 
#409      
BretMyBeachHouse
STLini25 said:
I’ll just I 100% disagree with you. I don’t think your legal opinions on antitrust law is strong. And you equating employment law with antitrust law is incorrect.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is an antitrust case. It's an employment case and about a company's ability to protect their reputation. I'm not equating the two.
 
#410      
STLini25
BretMyBeachHouse said:
I don't think this is an antitrust case. It's an employment case and about a company's ability to protect their reputation. I'm not equating the two.
Click to expand...
It’s 100% antitrust.

Restrictions are allowed in employment contracts. Student athletes are not employees.

The NCAA, universities and employers all have different rights. What they can and cannot do are totally different.
 
#411      
BretMyBeachHouse
STLini25 said:
It’s 100% antitrust.

Restrictions are allowed in employment contracts. Student athletes are not employees.

The NCAA, universities and employers all have different rights. What they can and cannot do are totally different.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Lay out briefly the antitrust argument. Or perhaps link to someone who shares that opinion.
 
#412      
STLini25
You can read most NCAA decisions in the last 10 years. The NCAA has very little right to take any rights away from students athletes for antitrust reasons.

Universities and employers (for completely different reasons) each have the ability to restrict students, student athletes and employees. The universities’ and employers, (again for very different reasons) have broad restriction rights/powers. NCAA has very little right/power.
 
#414      
BretMyBeachHouse
STLini25 said:
You can read most NCAA decisions in the last 10 years. The NCAA has very little right to take any rights away from students athletes for antitrust reasons.

Universities and employers (for completely different reasons) each have the ability to restrict students, student athletes and employees. The universities’ and employers, (again for very different reasons) have broad restriction rights/powers. NCAA has very little right/power.
Click to expand...
One, you obviously can't make the case. Which isn't surprising as no one else has made the case.

Two, now you're changing your argument and agreeing with me that restrictions are allowed but that it has to come from schools.
 
#415      
STLini25
BretMyBeachHouse said:
One, you obviously can't make the case. Which isn't surprising as no one else has made the case.

Two, now you're changing your argument and agreeing with me that restrictions are allowed but that it has to come from schools.
Click to expand...
Read back through the thread. I said it about a week ago.

And I’m an attorney who has worked on these cases representing the NCAA for 5 years. I’m fairly familiar with the law.
 
#416      
Illini in Italy
Lawyer fight!

bitch slap fighting GIF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back