forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

Empirical Cane said:
I said several seasons' past hubris would be SEC's undoing.

Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Tony4Canes said:
Click to expand...

Interesting development. If it did become law, does it give the ACC and Big XII leverage to make it the P4 again? In theory, they could go to the B1G and $EC and say let's combine our TV revenue and split it as the P4 or we'll go vote with the G6 to split it 138 ways instead of 68. Doubtful because it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face because they would be threatening to cut their own TV revenues, but it may be the only way to stay competitive ($) with the P2.

In any case, the number of lawsuits arising from this legislation will be mind-boggling if it passes.
 
I don’t think this bill will pass, but if it did it likely blocks the Big Ten and SEC from expanding. Section 205
 
Tony4Canes said:
Click to expand...




Allow me to math-check Ted Cruz...

AT LEAST 75% of 138 would be 104 schools.

Which would mean that you would need 35 schools to block.

Big 10 has 18 schools. SEC has 16 schools. And that adds up to 34.

Sooo...if math is math, it sounds like the Big 10 and SEC could block WITH AT LEAST ONE MORE SCHOOL INVITED TO JOIN.

Sounds like expansion will happen soon.

EDIT: For the record, there are a few independent teams, thus the Big 10 and SEC could also block BY GETTING NOTRE DAME TO VOTE WITH THEM. Math.
 
LOFL at any bill that prohibits the likes of Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA (and others) from moving up to the SEC or B1G.

Yeah, that'll for sure fly

Goodfellas GIF


Canes are leaving the God-awful ACC and ain't jack Dr. Jim Phillips or anyone else can do about it
 
Hold My Beer said:
LOFL at any bill that prohibits the likes of Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA (and others) from moving up to the SEC or B1G.

Yeah, that'll for sure fly

Goodfellas GIF


Canes are leaving the God-awful ACC and ain't jack Dr. Jim Phillips or anyone else can do about it
Click to expand...
Hard to see the law passing to begin with. But if it should, it does have anti-trust exemptions supposedly in there so it could take getting the law ruled unconstitutional for the P2 to get their way.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Allow me to math-check Ted Cruz...

AT LEAST 75% of 138 would be 104 schools.

Which would mean that you would need 35 schools to block.

Big 10 has 18 schools. SEC has 16 schools. And that adds up to 34.

Sooo...if math is math, it sounds like the Big 10 and SEC could block WITH AT LEAST ONE MORE SCHOOL INVITED TO JOIN.

Sounds like expansion will happen soon.

EDIT: For the record, there are a few independent teams, thus the Big 10 and SEC could also block BY GETTING NOTRE DAME TO VOTE WITH THEM. Math.
Click to expand...
I’d really like to end the madness of 24-26 year olds playing in college as much as it has benefited us the last few years.

I love the one time transfer possibility and 5 years max in school. Thats what it used to be with 1 redshirt year.

These old people hogging up roster spots/scholarship spots needs to end as does the JUCO years not counting for eligibility especially in baseball. 23-25 year old men throwing 98mph FBs at 18 year old kids or grown as 25 year old men tackling 18 year kids in football.
 
CaneinBroward said:
Hard to see the law passing to begin with. But if it should, it does have anti-trust exemptions supposedly in there so it could take getting the law ruled unconstitutional for the P2 to get their way.
Click to expand...


Can anyone tell the class the grounds on which NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma was decided?

Anyone, anyone...



1779909121266.png
 
PIPO said:
I’d really like to end the madness of 24-26 year olds playing in college as much as it has benefited us the last few years.

I love the one time transfer possibility and 5 years max in school. Thats what it used to be with 1 redshirt year.

These old people hogging up roster spots/scholarship spots needs to end as does the JUCO years not counting for eligibility especially in baseball. 23-25 year old men throwing 98mph FBs at 18 year old kids or grown as 25 year old men tackling 18 year kids in football.
Click to expand...


All of that could be accomplished by the NCAA...oh, I don't know...MAKING REASONABLE RULES which could survive judicial scrutiny.

None of that requires Congressional action.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
All of that could be accomplished by the NCAA...oh, I don't know...MAKING REASONABLE RULES which could survive judicial scrutiny.

None of that requires Congressional action.
Click to expand...
Is it because of all the legal loopholes that it isn’t accomplished and thus Congress getting involved?

Too many lost legal cases hence payouts?
 
PIPO said:
I’d really like to end the madness of 24-26 year olds playing in college as much as it has benefited us the last few years.

I love the one time transfer possibility and 5 years max in school. Thats what it used to be with 1 redshirt year.

These old people hogging up roster spots/scholarship spots needs to end as does the JUCO years not counting for eligibility especially in baseball. 23-25 year old men throwing 98mph FBs at 18 year old kids or grown as 25 year old men tackling 18 year kids in football.
Click to expand...
The 5 to play 5 is going to wreck havoc on the Olympic sport opportunities for High School athletes.

The most recent changes added potentially more scholarships but also reduced roster sizes for most sports.

Now that reduced roster size is going to be divided by 5 instead of 4.
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
Can anyone tell the class the grounds on which NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma was decided?

Anyone, anyone...



View attachment 363444
Click to expand...
Yes, that was with the NCAA restraining trade without backing of a federal law. This would be the law of the land with anti-trust exemptions baked in. Would the Supreme Court allow it? Who knows? This court doesn't exactly follow precedent every time.

Either way, great time to be a lawyer specializing in college sports. As usual, the powers that be in college sports relying on the government to handle their business.
 
PIPO said:
Is it because of all the legal loopholes that it isn’t accomplished and thus Congress getting involved?

Too many lost legal cases hence payouts?
Click to expand...


No, it's because the NCAA is an organization infested with spineless weasels who refuse to do their jobs properly.

For the record, the NCAA case that went to the Supreme Court involved ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS, and NOT "NIL" as is commonly misunderstood. The NCAA had plenty of time to draft NIL rules in advance of losing MORE court cases, and they did nothing.

****, I'd even give the NCAA credit for drafting inadequate rules that get modified or invalidated by the Sup;reme Court. But they did NOTHING.

This is not about "legal loopholes". The Supreme Court was very clear in the Alston ruling. If the NCAA wants to make rules, there is a balancing test. The NCAA has to take action in a way that does not violate antitrust rules or that limits the ability of the players to be compensated.

AND to make matters even simpler, there has ALWAYS been a "non-legal-loophole" solution to all of this, which is a collective bargaining agreement and treating the players as employees.

STILL, in spite of everything I just typed, the NCAA took NO ACTION. And they spent a ****-ton of money trying to "lobby" (i.e., "bribe") Congress to do what they wouldn't do themselves.
 
CaneinBroward said:
Yes, that was with the NCAA restraining trade without backing of a federal law. This would be the law of the land with anti-trust exemptions baked in. Would the Supreme Court allow it? Who knows? This court doesn't exactly follow precedent every time.

Either way, great time to be a lawyer specializing in college sports. As usual, the powers that be in college sports relying on the government to handle their business.
Click to expand...


It's pretty comical to pass a "law of the land" that effectuates a state of existence that was previously found to be an antitrust violation, and then give that bull**** law an "antitrust exemption". Hey, why didn't all those corporations figure this **** out 100 years ago, all you have to do is bribe enough Congressmen to give you an "antitrust exemption" and then you don't have to worry about antitrust.

It's brilliant, I tell ya...



1779913406170.png
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's pretty comical to pass a "law of the land" that effectuates a state of existence that was previously found to be an antitrust violation, and then give that bull**** law an "antitrust exemption". Hey, why didn't all those corporations figure this **** out 100 years ago, all you have to do is bribe enough Congressmen to give you an "antitrust exemption" and then you don't have to worry about antitrust.

It's brilliant, I tell ya...



View attachment 363450
Click to expand...
I hear you, but they gave baseball an anti-trust exemption. If passed, perhaps it gets the baseball anti-trust decision overturned in the end? What a mess.
 
ssvir said:
The 5 to play 5 is going to wreck havoc on the Olympic sport opportunities for High School athletes.

The most recent changes added potentially more scholarships but also reduced roster sizes for most sports.

Now that reduced roster size is going to be divided by 5 instead of 4.
Click to expand...

Playing time is always zero sum game.

For every player who "deserved" a 5th or 6th or 7th year of eligibility, there were high school seniors who got squeezed out of a scholarship.

They'll never get do-overs like the 24- and 25-year-old that popped up more and more the last few years.
 
Back
Top