re: What’s being missed about this SEC penalty stuff

You have players in camp playing by the rules so why does Kiffin turn his back on some of these people. I fail to see how a couple of players coming in after failing to make the Pro grade will make a significant difference

quote:

---

And do you really want the courts dictating the CFP? Talk about destroying college football.

---

You might be surprised if you looked up how desegregation happened in sports.

Hint: it wasn’t due to a sudden change of heart by the powers that be

quote:

---

Can you explain how it's different than ANY eligibility rule that has been in question recently?

---

If I knew that I would not be asking questions

quote:

---

SEC is on extremely dangerous ground. NCAA v. Alston (2021). The Supreme Court unanimously held that the NCAA is not exempt from federal antitrust law. The Court specifically rejected the idea that the unique nature of college sports automatically gives the NCAA an antitrust exemption. The SEC is subject to the EXACT same scrutiny. Getting together to prevent these kids (5 for 5) from playing puts them at risk of violation the Sherman Act.

---

The unanimous part was about limits on education benefits. It did pave the way for the rule of reason being applied to other benefits the NCAA had restrictions on. Kavanaugh’s concurrence gets played as the lead, but the Supremes have not officially ruled on non-education benefits or restrictions on who can participate. The court seemed open to the distinguishing itself from professional sports leagues.

quote:

---

…Only one procompetitive justification offered by the NCAA for its compensation rules survived the district court’s scrutiny55 and was considered by the Supreme Court: that the rules preserve amateurism, which provides consumers a unique product distinct from paid professional sports.56 The district court relied on this justification to leave in place the NCAA’s limitations on non-education-related benefits, stating that “[r]ules that prevent unlimited payments such as those observed in professional sports leagues, therefore, are procompetitive when compared to having no such restrictions.”

…Justice Gorsuch stated:
[T]he student-athletes do not question that the NCAA may permissibly seek to justify its restraints in the labor market by pointing to procompetitive effects they produce in the consumer market. Some amici argue that . . . review should instead be limited to the particular market in which antitrust plaintiffs have asserted their injury. But the parties before us do not pursue this line.

…There are Sherman Act–compliant NCAA rules that distinguish collegiate athletes from their professional counterparts that do not rest on the fact that collegiate athletes are unpaid — most notably the requirement that collegiate athletes remain enrolled while they compete.85 This rule better serves to distinguish collegiate athletes from professional athletes; while the casual observer may not be aware how much collegiate or professional athletes are compensated for their efforts on the field, college fans can, unlike professional fans, take pride in sitting next to the star player in English 101.

---

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/ncaa-v-alston/

Gorsuch said injunction didn’t invite judges to micromanage the NCAA, but his decision did. Even locals doing it now.

I still think the NCAA and the conferences need to lean heavily into education requirements for eligibility including being full timers in the fall and spring semesters and progressing up in classification each year after first enrolling as a freshman out of HS which would require passing a certain number of hours to move from a freshman classification to a sophomore by their second fall to be eligible to play that year. Scholarship athletes should have to maintain a minimum GPA while passing those classes.