Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Edgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    49,228
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiefan86 View Post
    Now I could see the enough momentum being built in Congress to get some sort of law passed to get the right teams in... (and boy could they be better spending their time elsewhere)
    LOL, you have to remember Congress spends the majority of it's time doing things other than what they're supposed to do... (A prime example is they haven't passed a budget in the last 6 years...something that's never happened in the modern history of our country.) This would be right up their alley. "I'll take things Congress does instead of doing their job for $100 Alex."
    "You start a conversation you can't even finish it
    You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
    When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
    Say something once, why say it again?"
    - David Byrne

  2. #22

    Join Date
    September 03, 2002
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgeman View Post
    LOL, you have to remember Congress spends the majority of it's time doing things other than what they're supposed to do... (A prime example is they haven't passed a budget in the last 6 years...something that's never happened in the modern history of our country.) This would be right up their alley. "I'll take things Congress does instead of doing their job for $100 Alex."
    which is why I said it. But there are no legal grounds from keeping it from happening that I know of -- which was the original statement, not congress wouldn't allow it.

    That said, I wonder if there will be enough teams left out in order for there to be enough votes in the congress to do anything. There are always going to be a few noisy members who will make waves, but they won't get anywhere unless the put together enough votes. If the breakaways say they're doing it to give the players fair compensation for their work, it's going to be hard for congressmen whose districts aren't directly impacted to vote against. Remember there's a reason those teams are in the 'lower' conferences and the biggest reasons are based on the size of their following and the size of their populous.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    There is a viable case for a violation of the antitrust laws for excluded schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokiefan86 View Post
    People keep saying this, but on what grounds would the remaining schools sue the breakaway schools? No one is keeping them from having their own league and playoffs. So it can't be a monopoly thing. No contract between them guaranteeing payment/play that I know of.

    Now I could see the enough momentum being built in Congress to get some sort of law passed to get the right teams in... (and boy could they be better spending their time elsewhere)
    Antitrust suits will fly if one party can reasonably allege that a group has market power and the group causes harm to consumers through a restraint of trade. That wouldn't be a hard case to file, although it would be a monster case to try for both the plaintiffs and for the defense.

    Antitrust laws are some of the most ill-applied and misunderstood in the country. With an activist president like Obama, I'd be hesitant to push for an exclusive club of top football schools. Obama isn't afraid to push an issue with almost no Constitutional support. Here, he'd actually have something to work with.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Antitrust suits will fly if one party can reasonably allege that a group has market power and the group causes harm to consumers through a restraint of trade. That wouldn't be a hard case to file, although it would be a monster case to try for both the plaintiffs and for the defense.

    Antitrust laws are some of the most ill-applied and misunderstood in the country. With an activist president like Obama, I'd be hesitant to push for an exclusive club of top football schools. Obama isn't afraid to push an issue with almost no Constitutional support. Here, he'd actually have something to work with.
    Nobody is going to file an antitrust suit ... and please keep the partisan political characterizations on UWS.

    What will happen if there's a breakaway is that Congress will step in to make sure the have-note aren't unduly affected. Remember that the bulk of the NCAA's revenues go to keep the FCS, DII, and DIII schools' athletics afloat. And those are not small constituencies in the aggregate. Congress will take the lead on this one, and it will be bipartisan. Take VA as an example -- there's not a district in VA that doesn't have at least one school that conceivably be harmed by the breakaway, but there are only two districts (5th and 9th) that would be helped by the breakaway (and even then, there are non-FBS schools in the 5th and 9th).

    If there's a move to pay players, expect Title IX suits. Those will be brought by the female athletes, or even by the non-football male athletes. Unless every player on every team gets paid the same, that's conceivably a violation of Title IX since women won't be afforded the same "educational" opportunities as men (these are theoretically student-athletes after all).

    I don't care how much revenue athletics brings in. Tuition and research dollars brings in more at every school. And the Congress sets the requirements by which the Feds disburse those dollars. Even Bama or tu will think twice about cutting off access to federal student loan revenues.

    Something is going to change, but anything other than a new division being set up that still generates sizeable cash flows for the other divisions will generate a LOT of interest (and thus oversight) from Congress. State legislatures will get in on the act as well. If VT and UVa are part of a move that harms the athletic budgets at other schools, I'd expect the GA to reduce their apportionment s by the amount they'd have to give to GMU, et al. to offset the decline. While file antitrust suits when it's much simpler to control the purse strings?

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    Nobody is going to file an antitrust suit ... and please keep the partisan political characterizations on UWS.

    What will happen if there's a breakaway is that Congress will step in to make sure the have-note aren't unduly affected. Remember that the bulk of the NCAA's revenues go to keep the FCS, DII, and DIII schools' athletics afloat. And those are not small constituencies in the aggregate. Congress will take the lead on this one, and it will be bipartisan. Take VA as an example -- there's not a district in VA that doesn't have at least one school that conceivably be harmed by the breakaway, but there are only two districts (5th and 9th) that would be helped by the breakaway (and even then, there are non-FBS schools in the 5th and 9th).

    If there's a move to pay players, expect Title IX suits. Those will be brought by the female athletes, or even by the non-football male athletes. Unless every player on every team gets paid the same, that's conceivably a violation of Title IX since women won't be afforded the same "educational" opportunities as men (these are theoretically student-athletes after all).

    I don't care how much revenue athletics brings in. Tuition and research dollars brings in more at every school. And the Congress sets the requirements by which the Feds disburse those dollars. Even Bama or tu will think twice about cutting off access to federal student loan revenues.

    Something is going to change, but anything other than a new division being set up that still generates sizeable cash flows for the other divisions will generate a LOT of interest (and thus oversight) from Congress. State legislatures will get in on the act as well. If VT and UVa are part of a move that harms the athletic budgets at other schools, I'd expect the GA to reduce their apportionment s by the amount they'd have to give to GMU, et al. to offset the decline. While file antitrust suits when it's much simpler to control the purse strings?
    My understanding was that the stipend would be paid to all scholarship athletes. That's why it will be so gawdawful expensive. The new division won't have to turn anyone away, schools will opt-out willingly. Maybe entire conferences will, as well. American Conference programs get an average of about 38% of their revenue from subsidies, MtWest - over 40%, C-USA - over 50%.(from a USA Today table referred to in posting on this board - 2011 numbers) Are these adminstrations willing to take on even more expenses just to say that they play with the bigs? We can also anticipate that there will be much more relaxed rules for recruiting (already being prepared for in the SEC). Schools will be permitted to pay recruiting specialists to work the HS talent full time. The SEC had alredy lined-up some of these guys and the salaries were $200 grand-ish. this new Division will not be for the feint of heart.

    State legislatures may want to weigh-in on this, but I don't think Congress would touch it with a ten-foot poll (get it?). Every step that is taken to make this new division more democratic or more accessible will defeat the purpose of the enterprise: to allow the "rich" schools to splash around a lot of money on big-time football.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'partisan'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    Nobody is going to file an antitrust suit ... and please keep the partisan political characterizations on UWS.

    What will happen if there's a breakaway is that Congress will step in to make sure the have-note aren't unduly affected. Remember that the bulk of the NCAA's revenues go to keep the FCS, DII, and DIII schools' athletics afloat. And those are not small constituencies in the aggregate. Congress will take the lead on this one, and it will be bipartisan. Take VA as an example -- there's not a district in VA that doesn't have at least one school that conceivably be harmed by the breakaway, but there are only two districts (5th and 9th) that would be helped by the breakaway (and even then, there are non-FBS schools in the 5th and 9th).

    If there's a move to pay players, expect Title IX suits. Those will be brought by the female athletes, or even by the non-football male athletes. Unless every player on every team gets paid the same, that's conceivably a violation of Title IX since women won't be afforded the same "educational" opportunities as men (these are theoretically student-athletes after all).

    I don't care how much revenue athletics brings in. Tuition and research dollars brings in more at every school. And the Congress sets the requirements by which the Feds disburse those dollars. Even Bama or tu will think twice about cutting off access to federal student loan revenues.

    Something is going to change, but anything other than a new division being set up that still generates sizeable cash flows for the other divisions will generate a LOT of interest (and thus oversight) from Congress. State legislatures will get in on the act as well. If VT and UVa are part of a move that harms the athletic budgets at other schools, I'd expect the GA to reduce their apportionment s by the amount they'd have to give to GMU, et al. to offset the decline. While file antitrust suits when it's much simpler to control the purse strings?
    The president has declared himself to be an activist president. How many US Presidents have said they want a playoff in college football? Depending on whether you frequent liberal or conservative news sources (I read both equally), addressing perceived injustice based on bare Consitutional margins is cast just as often as a positive as a negative. Again, maybe you don't frequent the same sites on jurisprudence that I do every single day. No party in the US would argue that Obama is an activist president so it's simply not a partisan statement. Maybe in your mind.....

    As for antitrust suits: it only takes one aggrieved party. That party doesn't even have to be a party to the litigation, because the United States is obliged to enforce antitrust violations. It's free legal counsel. You believe that Congress will work this out perfectly so that every potential litigant is happy. I tend to believe the threat of antitrust litigation will significantly affect any major reorganization.

  7. #27
    I'm hoping for the IRS to step in and declare large school athletic departments "for profit" institutions. Especially if players start getting paid. The amateur fig leaf needs to be blown away for good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    Nobody is going to file an antitrust suit ... and please keep the partisan political characterizations on UWS.

    What will happen if there's a breakaway is that Congress will step in to make sure the have-note aren't unduly affected. Remember that the bulk of the NCAA's revenues go to keep the FCS, DII, and DIII schools' athletics afloat. And those are not small constituencies in the aggregate. Congress will take the lead on this one, and it will be bipartisan. Take VA as an example -- there's not a district in VA that doesn't have at least one school that conceivably be harmed by the breakaway, but there are only two districts (5th and 9th) that would be helped by the breakaway (and even then, there are non-FBS schools in the 5th and 9th).

    If there's a move to pay players, expect Title IX suits. Those will be brought by the female athletes, or even by the non-football male athletes. Unless every player on every team gets paid the same, that's conceivably a violation of Title IX since women won't be afforded the same "educational" opportunities as men (these are theoretically student-athletes after all).

    I don't care how much revenue athletics brings in. Tuition and research dollars brings in more at every school. And the Congress sets the requirements by which the Feds disburse those dollars. Even Bama or tu will think twice about cutting off access to federal student loan revenues.

    Something is going to change, but anything other than a new division being set up that still generates sizeable cash flows for the other divisions will generate a LOT of interest (and thus oversight) from Congress. State legislatures will get in on the act as well. If VT and UVa are part of a move that harms the athletic budgets at other schools, I'd expect the GA to reduce their apportionment s by the amount they'd have to give to GMU, et al. to offset the decline. While file antitrust suits when it's much simpler to control the purse strings?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlee Hokie View Post
    I'm hoping for the IRS to step in and declare large school athletic departments "for profit" institutions. Especially if players start getting paid. The amateur fig leaf needs to be blown away for good.
    I think that would little real impact though. You'd think a smart department could simply never turn a profit: invest in facilities, pay coaches more, return money to the university academic fund, etc. There are too many ways to finish barely in the black. Big programs like Alabama that run out of ways to hide their money might get hit with a small tax bill, but what SEC school doesn't know how to hide money?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •