Video: Pate on major CFB changes coming

[Cruloc]

 

[BamaMoon]

If conferences can/will "police themselves" it'll have to be an agreement across the conference lines.

This might could lead to new alignment, especially among the power conference powers (SEC and B1G). And that might lead to a college football czar with a big stick.

Who knows, but a change is needed!

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The intent is great, but I'm not sure it'll stand up in court.

How is it that conferences think they can enforce certain rules (including but not in any way limited to, pay for play), but the NCAA can't?

Pate briefly (like < 5 seconds) mentions a Congressional exemption from anti-trust laws. He also very briefly mentions something or a body of somethings (?) that will determine which NIL contracts are fair market value and which are simple pay-for-play.

And he mentions an appeals process whereby a body of some description (?) will rule on disputes.

No mention of who specifically will do this. No mention of the legal basis beyond a passing comment on "Congressional" help....which, BTW, Congress has thus far shown exactly zero interest in granting.

No mention of who specifically will conduct "investigations" into suspected rule breakers. No mention of whether those investigators will have subpoena power (if they don't, the whole idea might as well not exist). No mention of who specifically would determine appropriate punishments or under what specific authority they would be enforced.

The intent is fine. Execution would require Congress not only to grant an exemption from anti-trust laws, but to bless a system of punishment and enforcement, including subpoena power and a court or court-like process to adjudicate disputes. Nor does Pate mention funding for any this -- guessing that would come from TV contracts, but Pate is deafeningly silent on the point.

Even if (big if) Congress is amenable, this will not be a quick or easy process.

Look, I agree with Pate's aims. I'd like to see the solution he describes come from on high like Moses bearing the Ten Commandments.

But to call what he's saying "half-baked" would be incredibly charitable. He's treating the legalities like they're petty nuisances that only players’ agents and pointy-headed policy geeks would care about. And he's treating a literal act of Congress like it's already agreed upon and the vote is a mere formality.

 

[KrAzY3]

The intent is great, but I'm not sure it'll stand up in court.

How is it that conferences think they can enforce certain rules (including but not in any way limited to, pay for play), but the NCAA can't?

Pate briefly (like < 5 seconds) mentions a Congressional exemption from anti-trust laws. He also very briefly mentions a body of -- what? -- that will determine which NIL contracts are fair market value and which are simple pay-for-play.

And he mentions an appeals process whereby a body (?) will rule on disputes.

No mention of who specifically will do this. No mention of the legal basis beyond a passing comment on "Congressional" help....which, BTW, Congress has thus far shown exactly zero interest in granting.

No mention of who specifically will do "investigations" into rule breakers. No mention of whether those investigators will have subpoena power (if they don't, the whole idea might as well not exist). No mention of who specifically would determine appropriate punishments or under what specific authority they would be enforced.

This would require Congress not only to grant an exemption from anti-trust laws, but to bless an enforcement system including subpoena power and a court or court-like process to adjudicate disputes. Not to mention funding for all this -- guessing that would come from TV contracts, but Pate doesn't address any of that. Even if (big if) Congress is amenable, this will not be a quick or easy process.

Look, I agree with Pate's aims. I'd like to see the solution he describes come down from on high like Moses bearing the Ten Commandments.

But to call what he's saying "half-baked" would be incredibly charitable. He's treating the legalities like they're petty nuisances that only pointy-headed policy geeks care about. And he's treating a literal act of Congress like it's already agreed upon and the vote is a mere formality.

There's a reason I said that California (and subsequently for reasons known only to idiots copied by the NCAA) did NIL in the worst possible way. It was specifically worded in such a way that you can't police it. It forbid interference of any kind, it basically said anyone, anywhere can pay a player NIL funds for any reasons.

The only thing you couldn't do it interfere with that in any way. Basically, the only rule is there are no rules.

Fixing that is a really enormous task because everything up until this point, all the precedent that's been set, all the rules that have been made is under this notion. It was incredibly stupid on the NCAA's part to let the California legislator come up with the legal framework...

 

[gtgilbert]

The intent is great, but I'm not sure it'll stand up in court.

How is it that conferences think they can enforce certain rules (including but not in any way limited to, pay for play), but the NCAA can't?

Pate briefly (like < 5 seconds) mentions a Congressional exemption from anti-trust laws. He also very briefly mentions a body of -- what? -- that will determine which NIL contracts are fair market value and which are simple pay-for-play.

And he mentions an appeals process whereby a body (?) will rule on disputes.

No mention of who specifically will do this. No mention of the legal basis beyond a passing comment on "Congressional" help....which, BTW, Congress has thus far shown exactly zero interest in granting.

No mention of who specifically will do "investigations" into rule breakers. No mention of whether those investigators will have subpoena power (if they don't, the whole idea might as well not exist). No mention of who specifically would determine appropriate punishments or under what specific authority they would be enforced.

This would require Congress not only to grant an exemption from anti-trust laws, but to bless an enforcement system including subpoena power and a court or court-like process to adjudicate disputes. Not to mention funding for all this -- guessing that would come from TV contracts, but Pate doesn't address any of that. Even if (big if) Congress is amenable, this will not be a quick or easy process.

Look, I agree with Pate's aims. I'd like to see the solution he describes come down from on high like Moses bearing the Ten Commandments.

But to call what he's saying "half-baked" would be incredibly charitable. He's treating the legalities like they're petty nuisances that only pointy-headed policy geeks care about. And he's treating a literal act of Congress like it's already agreed upon and the vote is a mere formality.

well, now that schools have the ability to directly pay the athletes in the new revenue sharing agreement, which is outside the old NIL (non)framework, they can have the athlete sign a contract to receive the funds from the school. Contracts can have terms, timeframes and buyout clauses. If the big conferences all agree that they will have a standard buyout clause, it can at least slow things down on the transfer at any time for any reason front.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

well, now that schools have the ability to directly pay the athletes in the new revenue sharing agreement, which is outside the old NIL (non)framework, they can have the athlete sign a contract to receive the funds from the school. Contracts can have terms, timeframes and buyout clauses. If the big conferences all agree that they will have a standard buyout clause, it can at least slow things down on the transfer at any time for any reason front.

I agree. I just don't see how, under current law, that's not collusion and therefore a violation of anti-trust.

 

[bamaslammer]

At the heart of the matter is our warped legal profession that thinks the bill of wrights means you can have anything you want and sue if you don't get it. together with the fact that you can sue anyone for anything and there is no gatekeeper to that process. Given that environment absolutely nothing he says is going to happen unless Congress does it by legislation. Congress can fix this, they do have the authority, but they are the only body with the power to overrule any random judge in any random town.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

The intent is great, but I'm not sure it'll stand up in court.

How is it that conferences think they can enforce certain rules (including but not in any way limited to, pay for play), but the NCAA can't?

Pate briefly (like < 5 seconds) mentions a Congressional exemption from anti-trust laws. He also very briefly mentions a body of -- what? -- that will determine which NIL contracts are fair market value and which are simple pay-for-play.

And he mentions an appeals process whereby a body (?) will rule on disputes.

No mention of who specifically will do this. No mention of the legal basis beyond a passing comment on "Congressional" help....which, BTW, Congress has thus far shown exactly zero interest in granting.

No mention of who specifically will do "investigations" into rule breakers. No mention of whether those investigators will have subpoena power (if they don't, the whole idea might as well not exist). No mention of who specifically would determine appropriate punishments or under what specific authority they would be enforced.

This would require Congress not only to grant an exemption from anti-trust laws, but to bless an enforcement system including subpoena power and a court or court-like process to adjudicate disputes. Not to mention funding for all this -- guessing that would come from TV contracts, but Pate doesn't address any of that.

Even if (big if) Congress is amenable, this will not be a quick or easy process.

Look, I agree with Pate's aims. I'd like to see the solution he describes come from on high like Moses bearing the Ten Commandments.

But to call what he's saying "half-baked" would be incredibly charitable. He's treating the legalities like they're petty nuisances that only players’ agents and pointy-headed policy geeks would care about. And he's treating a literal act of Congress like it's already agreed upon and the vote is a mere formality.

Politicians tend to listen to voters...at least in an election year.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

At the heart of the matter is our warped legal profession that thinks the bill of wrights means you can have anything you want and sue if you don't get it. together with the fact that you can sue anyone for anything and there is no gatekeeper to that process. Given that environment absolutely nothing he says is going to happen unless Congress does it by legislation. Congress can fix this, they do have the authority, but they are the only body with the power to overrule any random judge in any random town.

Lawsuits are a win-win for lawyers...

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I agree. I just don't see how, under current law, that's not collusion and therefore a violation of anti-trust.

I would think (regardless of what other schools do) the school would have some form of contract in place between the recipients and the college disclosing what the payments represent and what they don't represent. I just don't see a situation where there isn't any legal document involved and they're just handing out checks to athletes. The school still has the right to legally protect itself. Granted, what they can or can't put in the paperwork is another story. I guess we'll find out as we go.