It would be harder to do so.
This honestly seems like when large corporations call for regulation because they can afford to take hits smaller startups can’t. It creates a barrier to entry and allows the big guys to maintain their position in the market.
I never trust when large organizations call for more regulation. Like Facebook and Google calling for more regulation in tech or whatever.
3 Likes
This is exactly what the ncaa rules were supposed to do…until we found out the hard way the ncaa was in uta’s back pockets. Nothing in this agreement stops the blue bloods from cheating like they always have.
Why because they control this agreement again.
Why do they control this agreement?
Who do you think did this?
The blue bloods do not want a teetech alum spending big. It goes against their monopoly. That is exactly why this agreement was put together…by them.
2 Likes
The House Agreement is a pig in a poke. It says 'You don’t what the rules will be. You don’t know who will make the rules. You don’t know who will enforce the rules. You don’t know how the rules will be enforced. And, you don’t have the right to go to court to protect yourself. The agreement is so bad they are having to use coercion to get it signed.
1 Like
Not just for ignoring rules. Under the current proposal, they could kicked out for pretty much anything without recourse. That’s why it won’t pass in its current form.
What rules would they be ignoring? Those in the proposed contract that hasn’t been agreed-upon by any school?
Or just “rules” in the ephemeral sense, meaning that they’re made-up?
Either way, I’m pretty sure there’s no contractual basis for the B12 to take such an action.
College football at this level is all about politics
I mean something like an agreement on NIL and/or spending cap like the NFL/NBA/MLB.
I’m not sure how good a free-for-all would be for college athletics.
It’s more about greed. One could argue politics is about greed but it’s not supposed to be “all about greed”. Maybe I’m naive.
Right, but there’s no such agreement in place, and it’s doubtful whether a “cap” would even pass muster with the Supreme Court, unless other changes take place (like a players’ union). That’s one of the problems with the proposed agreement.
At this point, people blustering about kicking a school out for objecting to the proposed participation agreement that isn’t effective is just kind of nonsensical.
What if 14 Big XII schools agree to it? Who wins? I can’t see Tech or Baylor succeeding in forcing themselves on anyone.
Maybe that’s a discussion worth having if even ONE school signs the proposed deal, but that hasn’t happened and probably won’t without changes.
I haven’t seen a single school or conference out there advocating for this deal - none. On the other side, several AGs have agreed with Paxton’s objections (Tennessee, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia so far).
Today is the signing “deadline.” I’ll be waiting for all the backtracking from the “kick 'em out” crowd when not a single school signs.
If no one signs then it’s a different story.
The thing is, so far, only two schools have said that they won’t.
And neither has enough clout to win that fight.
Naturally, EVERY state AG is going to oppose this because it blocks a school from having the state AG sue on their behalf, and no state AG wants to lose that power.
So other AGs agreeing with Paxton here down’s exactly mean much.
Keep dancing - nobody has signed the proposal, and the deadline is today. Ain’t happening.
There’s far more public opposition than there is public support (none).
1 Like
We are a capitalist country but I’d call it regulated capitalism which works with some rules to keep it getting out of control.
Pure capitalism is hell . They used to have kids working in factories, no mim wage etc.Capitalism works best with some regulations. I would like a clause to place heavy fines on “bag money” bc it’s the main concern to keep blue bloods from cheating.
I think a revision will be made if this first round fails . It will probably be a revision that makes the ones not signing ok with it.
Some flaws in it are the not right to object or sue when hit with penalties and the penalties are very severe like no conference money for a yr which could cripple a school worse than ever other than the dealth penalty smu got.
So I’m for it but with a revision
I think they work it all out
Nobody?
Are you sure?
This article says that not all schools have signed it, but it does not say that no schools have.
That said, given that not all have signed by the deadline, that means the new CSC has no teeth, and House probably cannot be enforced.
Sad.
Everybody should have the same rules with the same sanction for violating them.
This means that it’ll be too easy for blue bloods and schools with big enough sugar daddies (that makes UH 0 for 2 unfortunately), to go unrestrained.
Stevie Wonder could have seen this coming.
1 Like
There’s some thought that this initial draft was intentionally overreaching to try to force legislative action. I don’t know if that’s the case, but it makes more sense than trying to impose the same kind of limits that have already been deemed unconstitutional through an agreement that doesn’t include the parties being limited (players).
I’ve always seen this proposed agreement as a first pass at getting something done - not sure why so many people seem to think it was an all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it deal. That just isn’t how this is going to work.
2 Likes
TT and Baylor just saying out loud what others school are quietly saying, we ain’t signing. Who the hell sign something you have fill in the blanks later after signing?
3 Likes
You read my mind. Zuckerberg testifying at the capital that regulation should be a requirement…to help keep my monopoly.
1 Like