1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Senate Passes the Protect College Sports Act
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:19 am to Tiger Prawn
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:19 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Why are they putting in revenue share money for players in sports that don’t bring in revenue? For a sport that loses a lot of money, the athletes should be happy with their tuition, housing, meals, and athletics training and travel all being covered.
Because girls need auto schollies for field hockey you bigot.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:31 am to RollTide1987
We’ll see.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:35 am to RLDSC FAN
I don’t think those are enough restrictions on transfers to slow down the portal. What I want to know is whether they put in place a transfer portal window so you don’t have players constantly moving around all the time, and especially not during the season, playoffs, or coaching search period.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:39 am to kingbob
quote:One of the main pieces of the bill is restricting players to only one transfer without sitting out a year
I don’t think those are enough restrictions on transfers to slow down the portal. What I want to know is whether they put in place a transfer portal window so you don’t have players constantly moving around all the time, and especially not during the season, playoffs, or coaching search period.
ETA: also apparently "tampering" rules but I don't know how that could be practically enforced.
This post was edited on 9/29/26 at 9:41 am
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:42 am to RLDSC FAN
The last thing needed is Congress dicking around with College Athletics . Title IX is bad enough, now they're granting anti-trust exempted Monopoly status to the vile NCAA, Conference Commissioners, and University President's.
This post was edited on 9/29/26 at 9:48 am
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:59 am to OchoDedos
quote:
It’s not only about head coaches leaving. The bill covers “any individual” who serves as football personnel and accepts a head coaching job elsewhere. That means former Oregon coordinators Will Stein and Tosh Lupoi couldn’t do any work for Kentucky or Cal, respectively, until Oregon’s season ended. Technically, these coaches can accept a new job, but they cannot recruit, make roster decisions, supervise staff or even publicly represent the new school in a football capacity until after the teams’ final games. Penalties for violations of this include a one-season suspension and potentially more.
Could this slow the college coaching carousel to put it on an NFL-like timeline?
Not really.... teams will still make hires official, then it's up to the school to decide if it wants him to stay in place until the season is done. It's unnecessary legislation to address an issue that was more of a 1 off than recurring problem.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:01 am to OchoDedos
In the unlikely event this becomes law, five years down the road when the true ramifications of it become evident, all the fans who are ejaculating over it because they think it’s going to restore the true and righteous way of players being unpaid serfs (don’t pull the “college education” crap on me, expensive as that is it’s a pimple on the arse of how much cash is being generated by this stuff) dominated by coaches channeling Sgt. Hartman out of Full Metal Jacket and risking life and limb like gladiators for fans’ entertainment will be singing a different tune.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:01 am to BilJ
Such a stupid part of the bill. Coaches should be free to come and go as they please just like any other employee.
The thing is ole miss didn’t want Lane around, he tried to coach the team and they said no but here they are crying being the victims again.
The thing is ole miss didn’t want Lane around, he tried to coach the team and they said no but here they are crying being the victims again.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:08 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
Such a stupid part of the bill. Coaches should be free to come and go as they please just like any other employee.
The thing is ole miss didn’t want Lane around, he tried to coach the team and they said no but here they are crying being the victims again.
they're going to have to define what "end of the season" means. Does that mean the end of your team's season, the end of the regular season, or does it mean the end of the college football season as a whole?
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:11 am to BilJ
quote:
There is also an HBCU sports media and connectivity program meant to help media infrastructure for live events, local journalism and student learning.
gotta have that side of pork with any legislation of course
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:14 am to migui8618
quote:
Because girls need auto schollies for field hockey you bigot.
You joke but the bill does nothing about the whole employee vs student athlete thing. Ive maintained for some time that the check for that mess will be coming due soon. If football players are termed employees then they don't get scholarships. What on earth will the colleges do if 85 football scholarships disappear? Do they offer those 85 to other male sports? Do they cut women's scholarships by 85 under the whole equal treatment thing (ha ha ha. this will never happen)?
Also! Reclassifying scholarships as employment contracts triggers the Equal Pay Act alongside Title IX. If a university is paying millions in salaries to male football employees, they would face immense legal pressure to provide equitable employment opportunities, benefits, and compensation pools for female athlete-employees—creating the exact financial shockwave that SEC athletic departments have been warning about.
Its a much bigger mess than anyone thinks and i just want to hear the creams from the AWFL crowd when fiscal reality kicks their beloved sports right in the ovaries.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:59 am to BilJ
quote:
really the bigger problem is yearly FA in the portal and having to re-recruit your whole roster every year.
This bill does not solve that problem at all
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:10 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Doubtful. The bill is written in such a way that there are anti-trust exemptions. The players are just going to have to suck it up and play ball or find another league to get them into the NFL.
The question becomes whether those anti-trust exemptions are unconstitutional. Congressional regulation of college sports seems to fall well within their Commerce Clause powers and Supreme Court precedent regarding those powers. So, I don’t think Congress seeking to regulate here will be an issue. The issue will be whether Congress can extend anti-trust protections to the NCAA (history/precedent indicates that they can) and whether granting anti-trust protections violates the rights of individual athletes (this will be the primary argument made against this law, IMO).
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:51 am to Ostrich
There used to be requirements of certain academic achievements for a student athlete to be allowed to play. If a student's studies weren't advancing towards a degree, he wouldn't play until he got/ that used to mean earned his grades.
Does that protocol even exist nowadays?
Does that protocol even exist nowadays?
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:09 pm to real turf fan
quote:
There used to be requirements of certain academic achievements for a student athlete to be allowed to play. If a student's studies weren't advancing towards a degree, he wouldn't play until he got/ that used to mean earned his grades.
I cannot remember the last time a player was ineligible due to grades or low ACT scores.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:29 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
The question becomes whether those anti-trust exemptions are unconstitutional
Antitrust is a statutory construct. There is no antitrust clause in the Constitution. Indeed Congress has done this with insurance with the McCarran–Ferguson Act
The issue would be the potential conflict with employee rights under the NLRA if the student athletes are employees
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:38 pm to RLDSC FAN
Likely no way Congress passes this.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:48 pm to Big4SALTbro
quote:they didn’t want him recruiting Ole Miss players to LSU in the middle of a playoff run
The thing is ole miss didn’t want Lane around, he tried to coach the team and they said no but here they are crying being the victims again.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:54 pm to MikeD
quote:
I cannot remember the last time a player was ineligible due to grades or low ACT scores.
Didn’t Arvell Reese say he had a sub 1.0 GPA in HS?
Posted on 9/29/26 at 2:28 pm to SoDakHawk
quote:
Will be overturned by the courts.
Why do you believe it will be overturned by the courts? What part of the law is unconstitutional?
This post was edited on 9/29/26 at 2:31 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News