(03-30-2024 12:50 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  

(03-30-2024 12:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-30-2024 10:09 AM)ODU1986 Wrote:  So most professional leagues have a draft system which allows the weaker teams to get stronger. Most professional leagues also have some type of revenue sharing program.

Seems to me a big problem we currently have with the system is there is no realistic avenue for the weak to get stronger. Thus they are at a continual disadvantage. So the question becomes is the current system good for all college sports or for just a few? And does the current system actually weaken the entire industry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can’t ever see a draft system ever being imposed. Putting aside the legal issues and who would actually run this draft and which schools would be involved, there’s a pretty core item at the center: who is going to sign up for a system where you don’t have a choice on where you go to *school*? I think that’s a realistically tough sell even in a fully professionalized and unionized college sports environment.

I agree, a draft system wouldn’t work. But IMO there needs to be additional mechanisms put in place to help the smaller programs grow. I believe the SEC and Big 10 are growing at the expense of everyone else.

May be good for them specifically, but what about college sports overall?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't care.

If they did, you would have seen something like a 25-25-20-20 split among the P4 or maybe a 24-24-19-19 split with the G5 getting 13% instead of 9%.

(03-30-2024 11:28 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-30-2024 06:38 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(03-29-2024 07:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  However, a decision by the P2/4/perhaps some g5s to work out an employment model with unions and health insurance? < snip> Why? To avoid potential court-imposed disruptions that could be far worse, and also to enable them to collectively bargain things like, I dunno, limits to the Transfer Portal and salary caps perhaps? What's it worth to Dabo, Kirby or Day to be able to lock down kids for 2 years, 3 years, perhaps their entire college careers, instead of playing defense half the time b/c that 5* stud they recruited has to sit behind a really solid 4* senior and another 4* junior for 2 years before he can play? What's it worth to Mac Brown to know that he won't have a great year and then see his 4 best players transfer to tOSU or Georgia? NIL would still matter, and it would matter a lot, but only for incoming freshman, or perhaps with less impact at least on the transfer portal.

But no 4*/5*, or proven vet 3*, is ever going to join a union that locks them down and reduces their potential for higher, perhaps even far higher, (NIL) income. It doesn't matter what the conferences 'work out'. Those athletes just won't cut themselves off like that financially and nonsensically. And without the top football players on board, a union is utterly meaningless for pretty much every other student athlete on campus. It will make no difference for them whatsoever. End of union right then and there, probably before it even begins.

I've yet to see anyone propose a solution around that glaring fact that doesn't involve a (in my opinion complete unrealistic) breakaway private league of some kind. I'm quite happy to firmly go on record saying that's not going to happen for all sorts of common sense reasons.

Whatever the future college football looks like, I have a hard time imagining how it could look like that with a union.

What are they going to do? Sue the schools and leagues for collusion under antitrust laws? They can but at the end of the day college sports will have the same antitrust exemption as professional sports. So the players union will be THE point of favorable players negotiations just like in the pros. They can't be forced to join but that won't give them any greater negotiating power than the union and schools/league agree upon.

The student athletes can't be forced or coerced to join a union at a public institution. They don't have to abide by any negotiated union contract. They can't be refused employment (or even admission as a student) because they won't join a union. There is no antitrust issue here. Any attempt by the school to violate any of those points of law is not only strictly illegal, such attempts are, as of a recent Supreme Court ruling, unconstitutional as well.

Do you think the hosting state and the U.S. government are going to let the let the schools blatantly flaunt established state and federal laws along with the U.S. constitution? If so, I think you may be somewhat overestimating what these universities are willing to try and get away with, and underestimating the dead certain legal response by the various layers of government involved.

Or do you think Congress is going to drum up some special exception specifically suspending the constitutional rights of student athletes?

For college football?

Really?

In my opinion, the United States government is never going to take any action which forces people join a union in order to be employed-at/admitted-to/participate-a-sponsored-activity-at a public institution. Such an act simply stretches the fabric of American identity to a tearing point. It goes against who we are as nation. It's one thing to allow a special exemption for private organizations to conduct business with private individuals. It is something entirely different when it come to public institutions, which are meant to be accessible to all citizens without bias or prejudice (including union membership or lack thereof) except those constraints resulting from due process of the law.

I just don't see how you get around that.

(03-30-2024 02:38 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(03-30-2024 11:28 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-30-2024 06:38 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(03-29-2024 07:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  However, a decision by the P2/4/perhaps some g5s to work out an employment model with unions and health insurance? < snip> Why? To avoid potential court-imposed disruptions that could be far worse, and also to enable them to collectively bargain things like, I dunno, limits to the Transfer Portal and salary caps perhaps? What's it worth to Dabo, Kirby or Day to be able to lock down kids for 2 years, 3 years, perhaps their entire college careers, instead of playing defense half the time b/c that 5* stud they recruited has to sit behind a really solid 4* senior and another 4* junior for 2 years before he can play? What's it worth to Mac Brown to know that he won't have a great year and then see his 4 best players transfer to tOSU or Georgia? NIL would still matter, and it would matter a lot, but only for incoming freshman, or perhaps with less impact at least on the transfer portal.

But no 4*/5*, or proven vet 3*, is ever going to join a union that locks them down and reduces their potential for higher, perhaps even far higher, (NIL) income. It doesn't matter what the conferences 'work out'. Those athletes just won't cut themselves off like that financially and nonsensically. And without the top football players on board, a union is utterly meaningless for pretty much every other student athlete on campus. It will make no difference for them whatsoever. End of union right then and there, probably before it even begins.

I've yet to see anyone propose a solution around that glaring fact that doesn't involve a (in my opinion complete unrealistic) breakaway private league of some kind. I'm quite happy to firmly go on record saying that's not going to happen for all sorts of common sense reasons.

Whatever the future college football looks like, I have a hard time imagining how it could look like that with a union.

What are they going to do? Sue the schools and leagues for collusion under antitrust laws? They can but at the end of the day college sports will have the same antitrust exemption as professional sports. So the players union will be THE point of favorable players negotiations just like in the pros. They can't be forced to join but that won't give them any greater negotiating power than the union and schools/league agree upon.

The student athletes can't be forced or coerced to join a union at a public institution. They don't have to abide by any negotiated union contract. They can't be refused employment (or even admission as a student) because they won't join a union. There is no antitrust issue here. Any attempt by the school to violate any of those points of law is not only strictly illegal, such attempts are, as of a recent Supreme Court ruling, unconstitutional as well.

Do you think the hosting state and the U.S. government are going to let the let the schools blatantly flaunt established state and federal laws along with the U.S. constitution? If so, I think you may be somewhat overestimating what these universities are willing to try and get away with, and underestimating the dead certain legal response by the various layers of government involved.

Or do you think Congress is going to drum up some special exception specifically suspending the constitutional rights of student athletes?

For college football?

Really?

In my opinion, the United States government is never going to take any action which forces people join a union in order to be employed-at/admitted-to/participate-a-sponsored-activity-at a public institution. Such an act simply stretches the fabric of American identity to a tearing point. It goes against who we are as nation. It's one thing to allow a special exemption for private organizations to conduct business with private individuals. It is something entirely different when it come to public institutions, which are meant to be accessible to all citizens without bias or prejudice (including union membership or lack thereof) except those constraints resulting from due process of the law.

I just don't see how you get around that.

I think you're missing the point. Nobody's going to force anyone to join a union. What is going to happen is collusion amongst colleges that play in the same league, whether conferences, divisions, NCAA-wide or a whole separate organization. There will be blatant collusion that would be quickly shot down in any other industry. Why? For the sake of fair competition. There will be rules regarding transfers, eligibility, compensation including salary caps. All these things that the NCAA has been doing for years and the courts are now shooting down like they're playing duck hunt. The difference is once the player's are considered employees they can form a union and collectively bargain, and they will. It will look much like pro leagues do today and the US govt will say that it's Ok.

Now you think it would be stupid for a 4-5 star recruit to join the union. OK, let's say the number one recruit in the country goes with his agent to Alabama and says that he wants a Lamborghini, a mansion and $2M/year. And the coach, AD and top boosters look at him like he's got 2 heads and say that's more than the SEC allows us to pay our entire team. Maybe he can go to Ohio State but they've likely colluded with the SEC to have the same rules. Whether this kid is in the union or not there's going to be limits to what he can negotiate and those limits will have been negotiated with the players union before he even enters the room. He might get his lambo and $2M from NIL if he's that good but that has nothing to do with union membership, unless it's collective money and not true sponsorship contracts.

I fail to see what advantage not joining a union would bring other than saving him the dues fees.

The players will unionize, including in the South. You are foolish to think otherwise.

(03-29-2024 11:50 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  It will be a vast wasteland, w/ Cougars and Beavers, and Huskies and Eagles, and Vandals and Grizzlies, and there will be a Deacon soothsayer that wanders the realm forever in spiritual battle w/ the ghosts of past Mustangs and Horned Frogs.

more schools athletics will become like Rice of the last 60+ years...and Rice will still suck...