|
|
Post by fishbeav on Jan 2, 2024 15:40:38 GMT -8
I like his approach. The NIL does not apply to incoming high school recruits. It is limited no more than $50,000 per athlete in addition to what the scholarship athletes receive now.
With respect to the portal you are allowed one transfer.
That would go a long way to making sense out of this mess and would make the players put a lot of thought into transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by treasurevalleybeav on Jan 2, 2024 15:41:27 GMT -8
Sorry, that wouldn't allow for nearly enough greed and disloyalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 15:43:19 GMT -8
Plus it would violate capping student athletes earnings.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 15:50:04 GMT -8
I like his approach. The NIL does not apply to incoming high school recruits. It is limited no more than $50,000 per athlete in addition to what the scholarship athletes receive now. With respect to the portal you are allowed one transfer. That would go a long way to making sense out of this mess and would make the players put a lot of thought into transfers. Problem is that the NCAA has very little control over NIL per the court ruling. The portal is probably easier to have some level of oversight, but the NCAA has been largely obviated by the court (and a loose relationship with the O'Bannon case).
I think the thing that reins in NIL is Title IX
|
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jan 2, 2024 16:11:36 GMT -8
I like his approach. The NIL does not apply to incoming high school recruits. It is limited no more than $50,000 per athlete in addition to what the scholarship athletes receive now. With respect to the portal you are allowed one transfer. That would go a long way to making sense out of this mess and would make the players put a lot of thought into transfers. Problem is that the NCAA has very little control over NIL per the court ruling. The portal is probably easier to have some level of oversight, but the NCAA has been largely obviated by the court (and a loose relationship with the O'Bannon case).
I think the thing that reins in NIL is Title IX
Why would Title IX apply? NIL is not administered by the school, nor is there Federal funding (or jurisdiction) over what a private company can offer to any individual for compensation or contractual relationship for personal services. The "free market" sets value for a person's name, image, and likeness to be used by a legal entity (corporation, closely held company, non-profit, etc.). Neither the NCAA nor the Federal Government can tell a local car dealership (Kendall Ford, Kiefer Kia, etc.) who they can hire and how much those persons are paid. The "equal opportunity" part of Title IX for Athletic Departments is enforceable because the school receives Federal Funding (direct subsidy or grants). For state schools like OSU or Oregon, the administration of the operation of the school itself is under government auspices and certainly receives government funding. But that condition has nothing to do with NIL. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 16:36:28 GMT -8
Problem is that the NCAA has very little control over NIL per the court ruling. The portal is probably easier to have some level of oversight, but the NCAA has been largely obviated by the court (and a loose relationship with the O'Bannon case).
I think the thing that reins in NIL is Title IX
Why would Title IX apply? NIL is not administered by the school, nor is there Federal funding (or jurisdiction) over what a private company can offer to any individual for compensation or contractual relationship for personal services. The "free market" sets value for a person's name, image, and likeness to be used by a legal entity (corporation, closely held company, non-profit, etc.). Neither the NCAA nor the Federal Government can tell a local car dealership (Kendall Ford, Kiefer Kia, etc.) who they can hire and how much those persons are paid. The "equal opportunity" part of Title IX for Athletic Departments is enforceable because the school receives Federal Funding (direct subsidy or grants). For state schools like OSU or Oregon, the administration of the operation of the school itself is under government auspices and certainly receives government funding. But that condition has nothing to do with NIL. I am a free market capitalist and I get what you're saying, but the concept of judicial activism butting into the private sector is not unique or without precedent. With a few exceptions like Livvy Dunne, NIL deals are going overwhelmingly to men, and within that, overwhelmingly to football players. The accusation of private collectives acting as a proxy for, and at the direction of, athletic departments is likely all it will take for a judge to agree to hear a case. There are many Federal judges who seemingly exist solely for the purpose of remedying disparate outcomes and making things 'fair'. I wouldn't bet against there at least being a case tried.
Beyond that, congress has never missed an opportunity to butt its nose into places it doesn't belong. They could pass a federal law regarding NIL compensation for amateur athletes, then its constitutionality would no doubt be vetted in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 2, 2024 17:27:27 GMT -8
Why would Title IX apply? NIL is not administered by the school, nor is there Federal funding (or jurisdiction) over what a private company can offer to any individual for compensation or contractual relationship for personal services. The "free market" sets value for a person's name, image, and likeness to be used by a legal entity (corporation, closely held company, non-profit, etc.). Neither the NCAA nor the Federal Government can tell a local car dealership (Kendall Ford, Kiefer Kia, etc.) who they can hire and how much those persons are paid. The "equal opportunity" part of Title IX for Athletic Departments is enforceable because the school receives Federal Funding (direct subsidy or grants). For state schools like OSU or Oregon, the administration of the operation of the school itself is under government auspices and certainly receives government funding. But that condition has nothing to do with NIL. I am a free market capitalist and I get what you're saying, but the concept of judicial activism butting into the private sector is not unique or without precedent. With a few exceptions like Livvy Dunne, NIL deals are going overwhelmingly to men, and within that, overwhelmingly to football players. The accusation of private collectives acting as a proxy for, and at the direction of, athletic departments is likely all it will take for a judge to agree to hear a case. There are many Federal judges who seemingly exist solely for the purpose of remedying disparate outcomes and making things 'fair'. I wouldn't bet against there at least being a case tried.
Beyond that, congress has never missed an opportunity to butt its nose into places it doesn't belong. They could pass a federal law regarding NIL compensation for amateur athletes, then its constitutionality would no doubt be vetted in court.
To be fair, the Constitution does not come into play at all. The result was necessitated by the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is not in the Constitution. It is a Federal law, though, which covers an interstate conglomerate like the NCAA. Congress is the only entity that can pass any law related to NIL compensation, because Congress basically created the problem by not exempting colleges and universities back in the late 19th century. And Congress has the ability to change old laws that it passed. The one thing that was saving the NCAA non-NIL model was the Olympics' amateurism rules, which similarly forbade profiting from NIL. (International law generally trumps Federal law.) But once the Olympics stopped mandating true amateurism, the last thing keeping NIL out was eliminated. Anyway, the Power Four Commissioners went to Congress recently to advocate for reform of the NIL rules to make it more equitable. But, as far as I know, nothing has been done on that front. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 17:33:17 GMT -8
I am a free market capitalist and I get what you're saying, but the concept of judicial activism butting into the private sector is not unique or without precedent. With a few exceptions like Livvy Dunne, NIL deals are going overwhelmingly to men, and within that, overwhelmingly to football players. The accusation of private collectives acting as a proxy for, and at the direction of, athletic departments is likely all it will take for a judge to agree to hear a case. There are many Federal judges who seemingly exist solely for the purpose of remedying disparate outcomes and making things 'fair'. I wouldn't bet against there at least being a case tried.
Beyond that, congress has never missed an opportunity to butt its nose into places it doesn't belong. They could pass a federal law regarding NIL compensation for amateur athletes, then its constitutionality would no doubt be vetted in court.
To be fair, the Constitution does not come into play at all. The result was necessitated by the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is not in the Constitution. It is a Federal law, though, which covers an interstate conglomerate like the NCAA. Congress is the only entity that can pass any law related to NIL compensation, because Congress basically created the problem by not exempting colleges and universities back in the late 19th century. And Congress has the ability to change old laws that it passed. The one thing that was saving the NCAA non-NIL model was the Olympics' amateurism rules, which similarly forbade profiting from NIL. (International law generally trumps Federal law.) But once the Olympics stopped mandating true amateurism, the last thing keeping NIL out was eliminated. Anyway, the Power Four Commissioners went to Congress recently to advocate for reform of the NIL rules to make it more equitable. But, as far as I know, nothing has been done on that front. I mention the constitutionality coming into play as it does with any law that is passed by congress. If the court found congress overstepped its bounds in attempting to limit free trade, they could, presumably, strike down the law on constitutional grounds. Until one can see the framework of a proposed law, it is hard to anticipate how a court could view it. |
|
|
|
Post by bigorangebeaver on Jan 2, 2024 19:32:18 GMT -8
Sorry, that wouldn't allow for nearly enough greed and disloyalty. 🤣🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 2, 2024 21:11:31 GMT -8
To be fair, the Constitution does not come into play at all. The result was necessitated by the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is not in the Constitution. It is a Federal law, though, which covers an interstate conglomerate like the NCAA. Congress is the only entity that can pass any law related to NIL compensation, because Congress basically created the problem by not exempting colleges and universities back in the late 19th century. And Congress has the ability to change old laws that it passed. The one thing that was saving the NCAA non-NIL model was the Olympics' amateurism rules, which similarly forbade profiting from NIL. (International law generally trumps Federal law.) But once the Olympics stopped mandating true amateurism, the last thing keeping NIL out was eliminated. Anyway, the Power Four Commissioners went to Congress recently to advocate for reform of the NIL rules to make it more equitable. But, as far as I know, nothing has been done on that front. I mention the constitutionality coming into play as it does with any law that is passed by congress. If the court found congress overstepped its bounds in attempting to limit free trade, they could, presumably, strike down the law on constitutional grounds. Until one can see the framework of a proposed law, it is hard to anticipate how a court could view it. I re-read NCAA v. Alston, in order to figure out, if there was anything more to the ruling other than the Sherman Act, and there was not. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States of America: The “orderly way” to temper [the Sherman] Act’s policy of competition is by legislation and not by court decision....The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” The Court then lays out fields, where Congress has made exceptions to the Sherman Act. They include agricultural cooperatives, insurance, and newspapers. Interstate "free trade" (as opposed to intrastate or international, which most often is not "free" at all) is primarily maintained through the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act was created by Congress and can be amended by Congress. Congress has the sole right to amend the Sherman Act, because the Constitution gives Congress the full authority to legislate interstate trade, thanks to the Commerce Clause to the Constitution. There is no constitutional issue in Congress amending congressionally-mandated interstate "free trade." And you can point to several laws, wherein Congress limited interstate "free trade." The interstate intercoastal waterway acts and the railroad acts immediately spring to mind. If you have an example to the contrary for me to mull over, I will listen. (I can only think of one Supreme Court decision on intrastate free trade, which the Supreme Court found that a Louisiana law violated intrastate trade. But that decision is mostly seen as wrongly-decided and extremely antiquated at this point.) However, if Congress makes a law to amend the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Supreme Court cannot encroach on Congress' clear Article I powers. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 23:58:01 GMT -8
I mention the constitutionality coming into play as it does with any law that is passed by congress. If the court found congress overstepped its bounds in attempting to limit free trade, they could, presumably, strike down the law on constitutional grounds. Until one can see the framework of a proposed law, it is hard to anticipate how a court could view it. I re-read NCAA v. Alston, in order to figure out, if there was anything more to the ruling other than the Sherman Act, and there was not. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States of America: The “orderly way” to temper [the Sherman] Act’s policy of competition is by legislation and not by court decision....The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” The Court then lays out fields, where Congress has made exceptions to the Sherman Act. They include agricultural cooperatives, insurance, and newspapers. Interstate "free trade" (as opposed to intrastate or international, which most often is not "free" at all) is primarily maintained through the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act was created by Congress and can be amended by Congress. Congress has the sole right to amend the Sherman Act, because the Constitution gives Congress the full authority to legislate interstate trade, thanks to the Commerce Clause to the Constitution. There is no constitutional issue in Congress amending congressionally-mandated interstate "free trade." And you can point to several laws, wherein Congress limited interstate "free trade." The interstate intercoastal waterway acts and the railroad acts immediately spring to mind. If you have an example to the contrary for me to mull over, I will listen. (I can only think of one Supreme Court decision on intrastate free trade, which the Supreme Court found that a Louisiana law violated intrastate trade. But that decision is mostly seen as wrongly-decided and extremely antiquated at this point.) However, if Congress makes a law to amend the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Supreme Court cannot encroach on Congress' clear Article I powers. I was told there'd be no math |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Jan 3, 2024 8:04:37 GMT -8
Discussing what should be done is getting really old. So much speculation over the last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 4, 2024 13:01:57 GMT -8
I re-read NCAA v. Alston, in order to figure out, if there was anything more to the ruling other than the Sherman Act, and there was not. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States of America: The “orderly way” to temper [the Sherman] Act’s policy of competition is by legislation and not by court decision....The NCAA is free to argue that, “because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,” it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws—but that appeal is “properly addressed to Congress.” The Court then lays out fields, where Congress has made exceptions to the Sherman Act. They include agricultural cooperatives, insurance, and newspapers. Interstate "free trade" (as opposed to intrastate or international, which most often is not "free" at all) is primarily maintained through the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act was created by Congress and can be amended by Congress. Congress has the sole right to amend the Sherman Act, because the Constitution gives Congress the full authority to legislate interstate trade, thanks to the Commerce Clause to the Constitution. There is no constitutional issue in Congress amending congressionally-mandated interstate "free trade." And you can point to several laws, wherein Congress limited interstate "free trade." The interstate intercoastal waterway acts and the railroad acts immediately spring to mind. If you have an example to the contrary for me to mull over, I will listen. (I can only think of one Supreme Court decision on intrastate free trade, which the Supreme Court found that a Louisiana law violated intrastate trade. But that decision is mostly seen as wrongly-decided and extremely antiquated at this point.) However, if Congress makes a law to amend the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Supreme Court cannot encroach on Congress' clear Article I powers. I was told there'd be no math you made me spit coffee all over my laptop damn you |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jan 4, 2024 15:09:28 GMT -8
Kerry's plan might make sense, but it will never happen.
Just like the "re-alignment" and "playoff" plans that many honks put out for years before we got what we have now.
Just because it would have made sense to have 4 regional 16 team, or 8 regional 8 team conferences and a 16-team playoff, doesn't mean there's any realistic way that was ever going to happen.
|
|
