Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Protect College Sports Act

ISUTex said:
Some SEC or Big 10 school will complain and file a lawsuit. So probably not.
Click to expand...
I agree that it’s unlikely. However, I think if congress made a law that granted the NCAA the antitrust protection, I’m not sure how you could sue and win. Congress has the right to make laws and regulating this would be within their powers.

I think it’s unlikely because a large group of people saw as college sports as exploitive and have no desire to put restrictions on players at all. Specifically, I think lawmakers who are a part of the Black Caucus would make a push to kill this bill.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: riceville98
I posted here a few years ago what Pollard recently stated. Go ahead and let the SEC and Big 10 break away from the NCAA and force them to just play themselves only in all sports.

It will destroy the very system that made them so rich to begin with. Official cause of death: greed.

No doubt, whatever system that is created for the remaining 87% of all other Division 1 football programs across country may not be as appealing as it is now, but I doubt it would be much worse than the completely broken system we have now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CYDJ, 1SEIACLONE, Erik4Cy and 2 others
If you limit transfers without penalty & eligibility waivers, that will curb NIL deals some. Athletes can’t threaten to leave every year without penalty
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: bos and isufbcurt
Limiting player movement is kind of whatever, doesn't seem like a great solution, but it's something I guess.

The idea that they're going to "close the loophole" on NIL by making sure the deals are for business purposes only is pretty laughable. Even if they did fund the resources needed to have a 3rd party verify every NIL deal in college sports it'd just bring back the era of bagmen.

Here's a link to the story the OP's link is referencing if you want a more detailed look at it.
sports.yahoo.com

Key senators strike bipartisan deal on sweeping college sports reform with transfer, eligibility and cap enforcement

The bill — named the Protect College Sports Act — would preclude the creation of a so-called "super league"; create an agent registry limiting fees to 5%; permit the pooling of media rights; and bar coaches from leaving their team before the season ends.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
Last edited:
Bigman38 said:
Limiting player movement is kind of whatever, doesn't seem like a great solution, but it's something I guess.

The idea that they're going to "close the loophole" on NIL by making sure the deals are for business purposes only is pretty laughable. Even if they did fund the resources needed to have a 3rd party verify every NIL deal in college sports it'd just bring back the era of bagmen.
Click to expand...

I would welcome bagmen back. With bagmen it was only thousands of dollars, a car, etc. This current nonsense is millions.

Remember when Cam Newton getting $150K was the worst thing to happen in college football? I'd happily take that back rather than these stupid deals that are going on now.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: bluestarcyclone, hlb76, WIBadger and 1 other person
isufbcurt said:
I would welcome bagmen back. With bagmen it was only thousands of dollars, a car, etc. This current nonsense is millions.

Remember when Cam Newton getting $150K was the worst thing to happen in college football? I'd happily take that back rather than these stupid deals that are going on now.
Click to expand...

It would. If congress wanted to do something about that, they could fund the IRS to create a branch to help the NCAA investigate improprieties. Subpoena power is really what the NCAA has always lacked to fight the corruption.

NCAA can investigate the student, the IRS can investigate the donor. Someone has to pay taxes when large sums transfer.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt
Clonehomer said:
It would. If congress wanted to do something about that, they could fund the IRS to create a branch to help the NCAA investigate improprieties. Subpoena power is really what the NCAA has always lacked to fight the corruption.

NCAA can investigate the student, the IRS can investigate the donor. Someone has to pay taxes when large sums transfer.
Click to expand...

100% agreement

But i am fine with someone getting a free car and a few thousand dollars under the table.
 
isufbcurt said:
100% agreement

But i am fine with someone getting a free car and a few thousand dollars under the table.
Click to expand...

I’m fine with someone getting a free car and a few thousand as well. I’d just like it to be transparent.

I’d think it’d only take one or two donors to get caught up with the IRS to curtail bagmen. When you’re talking cars, it’s easy to say it’s a loaner while their car is in the shop. When it’s millions, that’s a tax evasion nightmare that most donors would want to avoid. Cause I’ve gotta imagine that’d open up all their books to scrutiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cykadelic2
enisthemenace said:
No chance
Click to expand...
Posters here were also previously claiming there would never be a comprehensive bipartisan bill to be voted on.

If the bill doesn't pass this year, it will likely be due to midterm election timing or an unrelated issue triggering a blockade like what happened in the House with the Black Caucus and their redistricting cause.

The bipartisan content of the bill does provide a decent chance of passing either this year or next year even after midterm election changes. The removal of strict anti-employment language increased the odds of passage.
 
ZorkClone said:
I agree that it’s unlikely. However, I think if congress made a law that granted the NCAA the antitrust protection, I’m not sure how you could sue and win. Congress has the right to make laws and regulating this would be within their powers.

I think it’s unlikely because a large group of people saw as college sports as exploitive and have no desire to put restrictions on players at all. Specifically, I think lawmakers who are a part of the Black Caucus would make a push to kill this bill.
Click to expand...
Don't think so. Athletes got protections in this bill that weren't present in the SCORE Act. Doesn't mean it will pass but most of their objections have been addressed. That is why it is bipartisan sponsored. It is a compromise.
 
Clonehomer said:
I’m fine with someone getting a free car and a few thousand as well. I’d just like it to be transparent.

I’d think it’d only take one or two donors to get caught up with the IRS to curtail bagmen. When you’re talking cars, it’s easy to say it’s a loaner while their car is in the shop. When it’s millions, that’s a tax evasion nightmare that most donors would want to avoid. Cause I’ve gotta imagine that’d open up all their books to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I don't think bagmen would be giving away millions. No one is going to give away millions under the table without getting something in return for it.

Now a few thousand in cash under the table, no big deal.

Also, as an accountant it's not hard to bury stuff in the books, especially a few thousand dollars. Millions yeah that's a lot harder.
 
ISUTex said:
Some SEC or Big 10 school will complain and file a lawsuit. So probably not.
Click to expand...
Pope said:
Go ahead and let the SEC and Big 10 break away from the NCAA and force them to just play themselves only in all sports.
Click to expand...
Both of these feel possible. And it sucks so hard.

I know it's just my viewing habits. But I've seen what the Big 10 & SEC are trying to do to ruin college football and college sports in general for years....

...And it might be just little old me, but I completely stopped watching/consuming any Big 10 or SEC programming or games. Only if my school or a Big 12 team is playing them. I watch Big 12, ACC, Pac 12, MW, MAC Sun Belt, etc. (Basically anyone not actively trying to destroy college athletics.) And I'll tell you what: I don't miss watching Big 10 or SEC sports one bit.

Screw them. Let the play only themselves in their 2 conference super league and let everyone else be college football/athletics as it SHOULD be. If they won't follow the rules they agreed to, we don't need to watch them.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: PrimeCy and vortec22
- enables administrators to enforce policies related to movement by permitting only one transfer before a player must miss a season of eligibility. A second or more transfers are permitted under certain conditions, such as a head coach leaving or the elimination of an athlete’s sport.
Click to expand...
This part would give me pause. Imagine this bill was in place when Campbell left, we would likely lose the same number of players and would have a harder filling out a roster. A team in our situation would be 1-11 territory.

I would prefer one-time transfer rule, no exceptions.
 
ZorkClone said:
I agree that it’s unlikely. However, I think if congress made a law that granted the NCAA the antitrust protection, I’m not sure how you could sue and win. Congress has the right to make laws and regulating this would be within their powers.

I think it’s unlikely because a large group of people saw as college sports as exploitive and have no desire to put restrictions on players at all. Specifically, I think lawmakers who are a part of the Black Caucus would make a push to kill this bill.
Click to expand...

The courts can throw laws out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom