The SEC and Big10 just figured this thing out.

[Tractorman]

The 2 conferences are publicly stating they will punish its member schools for any rules they break. Basically a death penalty if it wants. This will circumvent the injuctions by all these local judges ruling that players have the right to play or get paid etc. With this wording, yes you have the right to play or get paid, but, if said school accepts you, they will face the hammer by the Commissioner. The player has nothing to stand on to sue. The school has nothing to stand on because every school president gave authority to the Commish to punish. The school can abide by the rules, get penalized harshly, or get 17ed and join the Sunbelt.

It does take the Big10 and SEC together to make this work. They seem to be in lock step. There is a path to turn this thing around without the govt getting involved.

Note: Credit to the Big 12 for showing the path. When the conference filed suit vs Texas Tech. Tech backed down immediately.

TLDR: Schools agree to be in a conference and abide by rules of said conference and accept punishment. They have the right to leave that conference as well. Only 2 options.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

That's my interpretation.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

OK they should take this a step further and apply this to ANY ineligible player that sued his way back on the team, namely Trinidad Chambliss.

 

[BreckyBratt]

So LUS and Mississippi leave the SEC and form their own conference. I'm good with that.

 

[tired]

Except spending $100 million on a roster isn't against the rules. This is just lip service from the B10 & they're the reason there is no cap & won't be one by this year's end.

They got tired of getting their asses handed to them. Now they have a way to compete for NCs & they're not giving that up easily.

 

[STATEgrad04]

I guess I am little confused on all of this, but wouldn't this open up the conferences to lawsuits? I don't see how the conferences can come in and pick which injunctions are ok and which are not, and not open a can of worms. Doesn't an injunction for the "professional" players carry the same weight as an injunction for a player who was declared ineligible by the NCAA from a legal standpoint? I fully realize that I could be looking at this completely wrong, I guess I am just seeing this as a situation where any player with an injunction to play has been ruled ineligible, so either an injunction is valid or it isnt, across the board.

 

[Tractorman]

Except spending $100 million on a roster isn't against the rules. This is just lip service from the B10 & they're the reason there is no cap & won't be one by this year's end.

They got tired of getting their asses handed to them. Now they have a way to compete for NCs & they're not giving that up easily.

That's what I'm saying. The conferences can now make any rule they want and can enforce punishment on the team and not the player. So if SEC and Big decide to limit the nil to 40 mil., they can punish the team for breaking the rules. Now, your back to under the table stuff, but, it would be better than what its gotten to now.

 

[Tractorman]

I guess I am little confused on all of this, but wouldn't this open up the conferences to lawsuits? I don't see how the conferences can come in and pick which injunctions are ok and which are not, and not open a can of worms. Doesn't an injunction for the "professional" players carry the same weight as an injunction for a player who was declared ineligible by the NCAA from a legal standpoint? I fully realize that I could be looking at this completely wrong, I guess I am just seeing this as a situation where any player with an injunction to play has been ruled ineligible, so either an injunction is valid or it isnt, across the board.

I saw a pretty good analogy of what we have going on. The NCAA is the laws that govern deer hunting in MS. Bear Creek (SEC) hunting club is also in MS. You shoot a 6 point deer on public land during hunting season and that is fine. You join the hunting club and they make a rule that you can't shoot any bucks under 8 point. The club can punish you because you voluntarily joined the club and agreed to abide by rules or be punished.

So the courts can tell you, yes you have the right to shoot a 6 point. But Bear Creek says not in my club and the courts can't do anything about it. You are free to leave the club.

 

[johnson86-1]

I guess I am little confused on all of this, but wouldn't this open up the conferences to lawsuits? I don't see how the conferences can come in and pick which injunctions are ok and which are not, and not open a can of worms. Doesn't an injunction for the "professional" players carry the same weight as an injunction for a player who was declared ineligible by the NCAA from a legal standpoint? I fully realize that I could be looking at this completely wrong, I guess I am just seeing this as a situation where any player with an injunction to play has been ruled ineligible, so either an injunction is valid or it isnt, across the board.

A lot of what has the NCAA scared is the antitrust liability. The conferences could in theory make there own rules and probably avoid antitrust liability because they don't control the market the way the NCAA arguably does (I'm sure the NCAA kind of screwed the pooch strategically by conceding that the relevant market was college sports rather than professional sports; I get why they felt like they had to do that, but it obviously bit them in the ***).

But the reason the rules were coming from teh NCAA and not the conferences is the conferences had the incentive to push the limits to give their teams an advantage. If the SEC and Big10 coordinate their rules, they are going to still be at major risk. While they have a better argument that they don't have market power, coordination between competing entities will still look bad. And on top of that, are they going to hold the line if/when the ACC and Big12 decide to push the limits to help their teams catch up to the Big10 and SEC? IF they try to exert pressure on the ACC or Big12, they're in essentially the same place the NCAA was in. I guess they could argue they compete with G5 teams, FCS, Div II and Div III.

And particularly with these newer suits that are not antitrust but relying on an arbitrary and capricious standard, there is no reason I'm aware of that they can't apply the same injunctions to the conferences with the same threats of contempt if they enforce penalties before a final decision. And possibly contempt if they threaten to retaliate against a school for complying with an injunction if they ultimately lose the final case.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

I saw a pretty good analogy of what we have going on. The NCAA is the laws that govern deer hunting in MS. Bear Creek (SEC) hunting club is also in MS. You shoot a 6 point deer on public land during hunting season and that is fine. You join the hunting club and they make a rule that you can't shoot any bucks under 8 point. The club can punish you because you voluntarily joined the club and agreed to abide by rules or be punished.

So the courts can tell you, yes you have the right to shoot a 6 point. But Bear Creek says not in my club and the courts can't do anything about it. You are free to leave the club.

This still gets iffy. If you can show or suggest that other club members are shooting 6 pointers and 2 pointers that were not reported and that you think you're only being singled out simply because everyone thinks uranasshole - or believes you've been stepping out with the wife of one of the Club's Board members.