CaliHorn
| Favorite team: | Texas  |
| Location: | Los Angeles |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 226 |
| Registered on: | 4/28/2025 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Color schemes of the SEC ranked
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:52 pm
100%
Purple/Gold? That’s just LSU and the Lakers.
College Orange/Navy is classic.
Burnt Orange is unique.
The light blues for Ole Miss + the red is also pretty one of a kind.
Purple/Gold? That’s just LSU and the Lakers.
College Orange/Navy is classic.
Burnt Orange is unique.
The light blues for Ole Miss + the red is also pretty one of a kind.
2
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:43 pm
quote:
If they start paying them, then they are employees and they will be taxed and so on.
Athletes earning NIL are subject to income taxes
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:38 pm
quote:
Beyond that, you are merely highlighting his NIL value was solely because of his ties to the school. Thus in no way is the school preventing him from his actual worth.
That’s not true though. If it was ever Aggie would have a huge NIL deal.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:36 pm
quote:
When I was offered academic scholarships I had all kinds of standards I was expected to meet. Grades, credits, etc. If I didn't keep those standards, the scholarships wouldn't be extended.
Okay, so let’s break this down!
What you are describing is the process of an individual school or scholarship setting a standard.
If you and I want to bargain with each other, we can.
Where you get into trouble is where, in interstate commerce, multiple institutions band together to agree on how they will bargain with you.
Now, within that there’s also a rule of reason that governs legality. But what you described doesn’t even get there.
Again: your individual employer setting terms and conditions on what it will offer is one thing. A group of employers all agreeing what they will offer individually is another.
At this point the NCAA knows it is cooked on this under the law.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:30 pm
quote:
You're just making an appeal to authority fallacy here. I'm obviously aware of the rulings. That only decide what people are forced to follow for the time. They get overturned all the time when better arguments, which often form from different circumstances come about. I have no idea when it will happen. It will likely form if the NCAA ever grew some balls and fought back.
Maybe we’re talking past each other: I’m not arguing policy, really. I’m not really making a normative argument. I’m telling you that under existing law the NCAA is in trouble.
As a normative matter, I believe this is an industry that is screaming for some regulation. But that’s not all about NIL.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:17 pm
You just described a restraint. Manziel’s NIL value is derived from his talent. His talent is playing football.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:11 pm
The NCAA thinks nothing of its own legal argument here.
It’s totally true that Congress could act to provide an antitrust exemption for the NCAA or some other successor organization. That would be a change in law though. An exemption that doesn’t currently exist.
If you believe that’s right as a policy matter, you can argue that. I’m not arguing that with you. I’m telling you what courts, economists and experts are all telling everyone: the law as applied to the NCAA invalidates a lot of the rules of the organization.
If we ran into a situation where we ultimately had collective bargaining, etc this could all also change there. But we don’t have that. And I think we’re not likely to.
It’s totally true that Congress could act to provide an antitrust exemption for the NCAA or some other successor organization. That would be a change in law though. An exemption that doesn’t currently exist.
If you believe that’s right as a policy matter, you can argue that. I’m not arguing that with you. I’m telling you what courts, economists and experts are all telling everyone: the law as applied to the NCAA invalidates a lot of the rules of the organization.
If we ran into a situation where we ultimately had collective bargaining, etc this could all also change there. But we don’t have that. And I think we’re not likely to.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 5:05 pm
They don’t have to be employees. It’s still interstate commerce and the players still have a trade.
If they didn’t…none of them would make a dime off NIL.
If they didn’t…none of them would make a dime off NIL.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:58 pm
quote:
They 100% bargained. Nobody forced them to accept the offers. The other party is free to set it's own standards and reject. Bargaining doesn't mean - give me whatever I want.
It’s totally true your employer/potential employer has a right to decline your offer. On an individual basis.
However! If multiple employers in an industry agree on the terms on whichever they will bargain with you for your services, that is an agreement in restraint of trade.
This is antitrust 101 stuff.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:53 pm
If you think you’re proving me wrong, you should definitely offer your services as counsel or an expert to the NCAA in court.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:52 pm
quote:
What about the military? Can I sue them since they wouldn't let me bargin for my salary and they had a monopoly on me shooting other people with large caliber weapons legally? Hell, if I broke it down by the hour, during basic I didn't even make minimum wage either.
Is your question seriously why doesn’t the Sherman Act apply to the US military?
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:49 pm
quote:
Repeat after me: You are not entitled to a scholarship and place on a college sports team.
Correct.
You *are* entitled to a free market to bargain for a wage for your services for lawful work though!
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:47 pm
quote:
The business model the NCAA simply doesn't make sense in the scope of modern college football.
The biggest problem is it’s just in many ways unlawful. The “amateurism” rules were central to the organization. And they’re getting killed in court on that.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:40 pm
So when institutions sue to make money that’s fine but people = sjw.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:38 pm
Really, it’s the 80s. And the SEC pretty much led the way on it.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:36 pm
Also, yeah, I went into debt to go to school. But the university didn’t make millions of dollars off me, either. And: if I wanted to and had the ability to I was free to endorse products!
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:34 pm
If there was no restraint why did Vince Young make no money from his name, image and likeness but Quinn Ewers made millions?
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:32 pm
quote:
In reality it's a bunch of envious social justice warriors trying to force what they believe is "fair" on everyone else, in the process destroying a sport that was fine for over 100 years.
When OU and UGA sued the NCAA over tv rights was that SJW stuff?
The entire landscape of tv rights stems from schools suing the NCAA to prohibit it from taking action against schools that used the CFA to bargain for tv rights.
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:24 pm
quote:
Or if the NFL is the goal, the player could pay a trainer. Those coaches make those millions because they are the best at doing that. But I'm sure you can find some failed/former athlete to train you. You'd also have to pay for your own room and board, your food, and everything else and you wouldn't have the benefit of the education after either.
So your options are no salary or you can pay.
So now do you get how this restrains your right to earn a living?
re: Chips are down: Is NIL regulation = socialism?
Posted by CaliHorn on 6/14/25 at 4:21 pm
Once again: it doesn’t matter if they agree on how they can compete. What’s relevant is they agreed that they wouldn’t pay salaries and athletes couldn’t earn NIL.
Sure, some athletes might make different decisions within this framework based on what schools decided they could offer.
But it plainly limits a right to earn a living. These kids are making millions now. Your argument is that’s not significant?
You’re wrong for the very reason this angers you: kids are making decisions based on money.
Sure, some athletes might make different decisions within this framework based on what schools decided they could offer.
But it plainly limits a right to earn a living. These kids are making millions now. Your argument is that’s not significant?
You’re wrong for the very reason this angers you: kids are making decisions based on money.
Popular
27
