Tuberville has an NCAA proposal that I think is fair...

[dawgstudent]

Got this from the pay board.

• 5 to play 5, no more redshirts
• 1 free transfer, after that back to old rule where you sit out a year
• Grads can transfer again free but that’s it
• No restrictions on player earnings.

Claims to have 56 votes to pass it, just needs to get that to 60.

 

[8dog]

Is this a specific anti trust exemption? Otherwise it’s probably a no go

 

[o_Brokerdawg]

Have to have restrictions/salary cap for any model to work but i love the simplicity.

 

[El Perro Grande]

Is this a specific anti trust exemption? Otherwise it’s probably a no go

I agree. The US Senate doesn't need to write college football law. There needs to be more than one avenue to play college ball, that way NCAA or whoever can enforce regulations without players feeling compelled to comply with that monopoly. No one forces them to play, so policy should be lawful, but they need somewhere else to participate for that to work.

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

Probably should add an additional opportunity to transfer in the event of a head coaching change

 

[HailStout]

no one who disrespects the King the way he did deserves any kind of praise

 

[Xenomorph]

The only problem with any of that is it’s never going to fly because public education is still wrapped up in athletics.

“See judge.. I need to transfer a third time because the major in which I’m engaged at my current school is no longer viable for a career. Holyshit State has the perfect career path for me but will not offer me a scholarship unless I’m eligible immediately. Please, judge.. I need this scholarship so I can go to school and prepare for later life!”

Pittsboro Judge: GRANTED

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Why is everybody so worried about it anyway? I say let it play out the way it is now. Sooner or later folks will get tired of paying for it.

 

[johnson86-1]

I agree. The US Senate doesn't need to write college football law. There needs to be more than one avenue to play college ball, that way NCAA or whoever can enforce regulations without players feeling compelled to comply with that monopoly. No one forces them to play, so policy should be lawful, but they need somewhere else to participate for that to work.

Well, it's already being treated like they did. So to get your wish they need to pass a bill exempting the NCAA from antitrust.

 

[Xenomorph]

Why is everybody so worried about it anyway? I say let it play out the way it is now. Sooner or later folks will get tired of paying for it.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

His bill is here:

https://www.tuberville.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/HEY264661.pdf

Its just the 5 for 5 rule under discussion at the NCAA, except it doesnt state when the 5 years start running, or provide exceptions for military service, religious missions and the like.

It does not address NIL or player earnings at all.

It does provide protection against anti trust claims for schools following the law.

It will probably need some amendments, including when it would be effective. But if the schools want this, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

ETA: It will probably become a partisan issue, but it shouldn't be.

 

[El Perro Grande]

Well, it's already being treated like they did. So to get your wish they need to pass a bill exempting the NCAA from antitrust.

More simply put, they need more college leagues with more than one governing body to break the monopoly and get the government out of football. That's what I was originally trying to say. Then they could have a championship based on the league winners, like how the super bowl started.

 

[TroyMcClure2025]

Why is everybody so worried about it anyway? I say let it play out the way it is now. Sooner or later folks will get tired of paying for it.

I was there at least 5 years ago. Rewarding stupidity and mediocrity should be limited to those in Congressional seats. At least we have a chance to vote them out.

 

[prdubya]

Probably should add an additional opportunity to transfer in the event of a head coaching change

Respectfully... I think this is one they should throw out the window. If you want to "fix" some of this free agency like madness, I think you have to encourage the kids to commit to a program, not a coach.

My fix would be you have to be at a school for 2 years minimum, and no grad transfer rule. You can get 1 free transfer and you're at that school for 2 years minimum.

If you are good enough and want to stay, you could get 3 at either institution, but if you get one free transfer.

 

[Msdeltareb]

I’m just glad things are going so well for the common American that congress gets to spend it’s time on something as meaningful as hut hut.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

It is a good start.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

So...The Pine Box Bill?

 

[Seinfeld]

Respectfully... I think this is one they should throw out the window. If you want to "fix" some of this free agency like madness, I think you have to encourage the kids to commit to a program, not a coach.

My fix would be you have to be at a school for 2 years minimum, and no grad transfer rule. You can get 1 free transfer and you're at that school for 2 years minimum.

If you are good enough and want to stay, you could get 3 at either institution, but if you get one free transfer.

Especially since we know that kids are neither committing to a school nor a coach. Their commitment is to this

 

[Dirty Dirk]

no one who disrespects the King the way he did deserves any kind of praise

He disparaged Jesus?

 

[leeinator]

Got this from the pay board.

• 5 to play 5, no more redshirts
• 1 free transfer, after that back to old rule where you sit out a year
• Grads can transfer again free but that’s it
• No restrictions on player earnings.

Claims to have 56 votes to pass it, just needs to get that to 60.

I had been pushing 6 to play 5 mainly because it would give a substantially injured player time to heal (like an ACL or TJ procedure) and get a useful 5th year to play. I also wanted a high school recruited player to commit to 2 years at the very beginning. Then he/she could get 1 free transfer after that. Everything else on Tub's list if fine with me.

 

[GloryDawg]

Why is he going to need 60? Who is going to filibuster it? Most Senators don't give a ****.

 

[mstateglfr]

I had been pushing 6 to play 5 mainly because it would give a substantially injured player time to heal (like an ACL or TJ procedure) and get a useful 5th year to play. I also wanted a high school recruited player to commit to 2 years at the very beginning. Then he/she could get 1 free transfer after that. Everything else on Tub's list if fine with me.

Yup.
I've been surprised to see how 5 years is the limit for many theoretical bills over the last handful of months.

A player redshirts freshman year to get better/stronger/adjust. Why get rid of redshirting?
They break a bone before junior year session and miss it....so they only get to play 3 years if it's 5 to play 4?

And if it's 5 to play 5...why increase it permanently to 5? That further shatters a bunch of records(does it really matter to me? No. It matters to others though).
If the argument is they get 5 Because 4 was too restrictive and suppressed their potential earnings, well 5 does the same thing. So there is no actual defensible reason for capping it at 5.

 

[mstateglfr]

Why is everybody so worried about it anyway? I say let it play out the way it is now. Sooner or later folks will get tired of paying for it.

Yep- let it be a free for all.

Any legislation will be legally challenged, based on current political climate and societal climte.

Any legislation that limits earnings will be criticized for the amount of time given to make that money. That time limit will be challenged since it will be arbitrary.

The current reality suuuucks. But players are making gobs of money, coaches are making gobs of money, gambling sites are making gobs of money, and viewership is great.

If colleges want to exit off the Crazy Train, they know how. They don't want to though.

 

[MagnoliaHunter]

Have to have restrictions/salary cap for any model to work but i love the simplicity.

Then they will just go back to paying players under the table.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Yup.
I've been surprised to see how 5 years is the limit for many theoretical bills over the last handful of months.

A player redshirts freshman year to get better/stronger/adjust. Why get rid of redshirting?
They break a bone before junior year session and miss it....so they only get to play 3 years if it's 5 to play 4?

And if it's 5 to play 5...why increase it permanently to 5? That further shatters a bunch of records(does it really matter to me? No. It matters to others though).
If the argument is they get 5 Because 4 was too restrictive and suppressed their potential earnings, well 5 does the same thing. So there is no actual defensible reason for capping it at 5.

Any number they pick would be arbitrary. 5 years has become the traditional college career. 4 years matches the traditional academic pathway, and the 5th year allows for injuries and the like.

In your next post you say this will be challenged, but on what grounds? Is Congress exceeding its constitutional authority? I think this falls squarely within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, and I dont see any other constitutional issues

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Then they will just go back to paying players under the table.

Maybe....but it would be a federal crime.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Got this from the pay board.

• 5 to play 5, no more redshirts
• 1 free transfer, after that back to old rule where you sit out a year
• Grads can transfer again free but that’s it
• No restrictions on player earnings.

Claims to have 56 votes to pass it, just needs to get that to 60.

what a bizarro world. we now like what pine box has to say...

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Why is he going to need 60? Who is going to filibuster it? Most Senators don't give a ****.

Depends on which lobbying group pays them. They do give a ***t about that

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

If colleges want to exit off the Crazy Train, they know how. They don't want to though.

Not as long as we're paying. They'd be crazy too.

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

Something has to be done because college athletics are slowly dieing but it is funny to see capitalists talk against capitalism.

Right now is the perfect free market but now businesses don't like it.

 

[GloryDawg]

Depends on which lobbying group pays them. They do give a ***t about that

Who benefits from the way it is now? With that said who would lobby against fixing it? The fans, the coaches the boosters hate it. they are the ones who keep football going. I guess losing unlimited transferring without sitting out would hurt the players but are they going to lobby?

 

[maroonmania]

Blah. Does nothing to stop the all out bidding war on players coming out of HS and current college players. Stops multiple free transfers but that's about the only real problem it addresses. There has to be some type of cap on revenue sharing and NIL that can come from any school (essentially a salary cap) or nothing else really helps. No limit needed on an individual player but limit of what a school can pay across the board. So if you go pay a QB 5 million then that comes out of what you can pay to other players in all sports. That's the only thing that will help.

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

Who benefits from the way it is now? With that said who would lobby against fixing it? The fans, the coaches the boosters hate it. they are the ones who keep football going. I guess losing unlimited transferring without sitting out would hurt the players but are they going to lobby?

As long as we pay then why change it. Same as gas prices and everything else that has gotten out of control. Economics 101, Supply vs Demand. If the demand drops with the supply stays the same then either the price drops or Supply drops (which would be universities no longer having athletics).

We have already seen universities eliminating sports and getting to the minimum to stay eligible to compete.

 

[GloryDawg]

As long as we pay then why change it. Same as gas prices and everything else that has gotten out of control. Economics 101, Supply vs Demand. If the demand drops with the supply stays the same then either the price drops or Supply drops (which would be universities no longer having athletics).

We have already seen universities eliminating sports and getting to the minimum to stay eligible to compete.

That was my point. Who is going to lobby against trying to fix it. College football is not fun to watch anymore.

 

[maroonmania]

As long as we pay then why change it. Same as gas prices and everything else that has gotten out of control. Economics 101, Supply vs Demand. If the demand drops with the supply stays the same then either the price drops or Supply drops (which would be universities no longer having athletics).

We have already seen universities eliminating sports and getting to the minimum to stay eligible to compete.

Sports doesn't really work like Econ 101 if you want a competitive framework that keep fans engaged for all teams. That's why all pro sports have salary caps and limited times when players become free agents. Nothing fair in sports about the Yankees or the Lakers or whoever buying up every elite player in the league every year because they can outspend everyone. There has to be some sense of competitive balance and college sports is losing that.

 

[The Peeper]

I’m just glad things are going so well for the common American that congress gets to spend it’s time on something as meaningful as hut hut.

Exactly.

I'm a lot more interested in them getting healthcare and pharmaceutical prices down for the American public; getting fuel, grocery and imported goods prices down, and getting things like the USPS, Medicare, Social Security, health insurance, etc etc etc fixed than I am interested in them getting a damn athlete what he/she wants from a university. They have no business at all getting into college athletics.

 

[The Peeper]

He disparaged Jesus?

This was my first thought:

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Who benefits from the way it is now? With that said who would lobby against fixing it? The fans, the coaches the boosters hate it. they are the ones who keep football going. I guess losing unlimited transferring without sitting out would hurt the players but are they going to lobby?

They'll wait for their lawyers to file a lawsuit. And they will win. Again.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

That was my point. Who is going to lobby against trying to fix it. College football is not fun to watch anymore.

And yet we are watching more than ever.

 

[mstateglfr]

Any number they pick would be arbitrary. 5 years has become the traditional college career. 4 years matches the traditional academic pathway, and the 5th year allows for injuries and the like.

In your next post you say this will be challenged, but on what grounds? Is Congress exceeding its constitutional authority? I think this falls squarely within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, and I dont see any other constitutional issues

I think it will be challenged for it being arbitrary. Why cant someone be in school and play for 6 years? Congress is limiting the student athlete's ability to receive an education and participate in earning an income if they dont allow a student athlete 6 years.
Or 7 years. Why not allow a student athlete to receive an education and participate in earning an income while getting their undergrad and masters degrees?
etc etc.

Yeah, whatever is decided will be an arbitrary restriction on how long someone can play in college. That is what I am saying- whatever is decided will be(should be?) challenged because it is inherently arbitrary. The argument will be 'this limits student athlete opportunity for education and earnings'.


I am not saying it is right or wrong, just saying it will(should?) happen since that is the logical next step in all this.