NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 436
  • Views: 5K
  • Sports 
Carolina Fever said:
Yeah, Arkansas is the biggest "Cinderella" left. Guess you can say BYU and Mississippi are outliers as 6 seeds. But no smaller schools are left. I think with NIL the days of the smaller schools making a run in the tournament are over.
Click to expand...
Exactly what Jay Williams said. And you know it’s true.
 
Is it NIL, or NIL+transfer portal.

I remember watching CJ McCollum at Lehigh. That team was pretty good, as it had a future NBA all-star on it. I'd bet Lehigh could come up with some decent NIL money (or CJ's agent could) for him. Not what UK would pay, but he used to have to sit out a year.

That's why I thought the NCAA was crazy for defending its "one year" rule as about academics when it clearly wasn't. They could have won on the competitive balance rationale -- I'm going to need some considerable evidence to shake that belief.
 
superrific said:
Is it NIL, or NIL+transfer portal.

I remember watching CJ McCollum at Lehigh. That team was pretty good, as it had a future NBA all-star on it. I'd bet Lehigh could come up with some decent NIL money (or CJ's agent could) for him. Not what UK would pay, but he used to have to sit out a year.

That's why I thought the NCAA was crazy for defending its "one year" rule as about academics when it clearly wasn't. They could have won on the competitive balance rationale -- I'm going to need some considerable evidence to shake that belief.
Click to expand...
Because the competitive balance argument has been an antitrust loser in sports. Absent a collective bargaining agreement, player mobility restraints are seen as unlawful price constraints. Once you allow payments to players, forcing those players to stay with a certain team creates an artificial price cap on talent.
 
Calheel said:
Because the competitive balance argument has been an antitrust loser in sports. Absent a collective bargaining agreement, player mobility restraints are seen as unlawful price constraints. Once you allow payments to players, forcing those players to stay with a certain team creates an artificial price cap on talent.
Click to expand...
Not going to argue this again. We have different views on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, Board of Regents (I think that was the antitrust case from the 80s) was still good law, and it applied Rule of Reason analysis to college sports.

The NCAA has a much better argument about competitive balance than pro sports leagues, because of the nature of the product. I mean, why do people refer to it as March Madness? Because lower seeds sometimes win. It's not March Madness because a 4 seed beat a 1 seed and a 2 seed to make the Final Four. It's March Madness because 14 seeds sometimes win, or 10 seeds get to the final four, etc.

If the NCAA tournament becomes chalky, I predict it will decline in popularity -- and I doubt that's all that controversial. When the demand for a product itself depends on competitive balance within the product, the rule of reason is satisfied in my view.

That said, I've not litigated any antitrust cases and haven't paid very close attention to the case law over the past 12-15 years, once it became clear that teaching antitrust was not my future.
 
superrific said:
Not going to argue this again. We have different views on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, Board of Regents (I think that was the antitrust case from the 80s) was still good law, and it applied Rule of Reason analysis to college sports.

The NCAA has a much better argument about competitive balance than pro sports leagues, because of the nature of the product. I mean, why do people refer to it as March Madness? Because lower seeds sometimes win. It's not March Madness because a 4 seed beat a 1 seed and a 2 seed to make the Final Four. It's March Madness because 14 seeds sometimes win, or 10 seeds get to the final four, etc.

If the NCAA tournament becomes chalky, I predict it will decline in popularity -- and I doubt that's all that controversial. When the demand for a product itself depends on competitive balance within the product, the rule of reason is satisfied in my view.

That said, I've not litigated any antitrust cases and haven't paid very close attention to the case law over the past 12-15 years, once it became clear that teaching antitrust was not my future.
Click to expand...
Rule of reason still applies. It is just that what the judges think is reasonable and what you think is reasonable is very different in 2025.
 
Calheel said:
Rule of reason still applies. It is just that what the judges think is reasonable and what you think is reasonable is very different in 2025.
Click to expand...
Sure, in 2025. In 2015? And it's hard for the judges to rule on the grounds of competitive balance if the NCAA put all its eggs in the student-athlete basket. That was so stupid. Whether or not the competitive balance argument would be a winner, the student-athlete argument was guaranteed to lose.
 
I think they just need to go to a full blown pro system with the NIL stuff. Have contracts for the players in exchange for the money. If you want to transfer before your contract is up, then the school you're transferring to needs to repay the NIL money that the player received. I don't have a problem at all with the NIL money, but transferring every year is ridiculous. The school that the player came from should get something in exchange for the money they already paid.
 
Carolina Fever said:
I think they just need to go to a full blown pro system with the NIL stuff. Have contracts for the players in exchange for the money. If you want to transfer before your contract is up, then the school you're transferring to needs to repay the NIL money that the player received. I don't have a problem at all with the NIL money, but transferring every year is ridiculous. The school that the player came from should get something in exchange for the money they already paid.
Click to expand...
I think that we are headed to a full blown pro system (if not already there) but I would argue that we should install salary caps to provide some balance for football and basketball. Luxury taxes, fines, etc.
 
Mundial said:
I think that we are headed to a full blown pro system (if not already there) but I would argue that we should install salary caps to provide some balance for football and basketball. Luxury taxes, fines, etc.
Click to expand...
Just make it like a minor league for the pros. I also think the bigger schools are going to end up breaking away from the NCAA eventually and having their own league with geographical regions, at least for football and basketball.
 
Carolina Fever said:
I think they just need to go to a full blown pro system with the NIL stuff. Have contracts for the players in exchange for the money. If you want to transfer before your contract is up, then the school you're transferring to needs to repay the NIL money that the player received. I don't have a problem at all with the NIL money, but transferring every year is ridiculous. The school that the player came from should get something in exchange for the money they already paid.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. They got the year he played that they paid for. They have no hold on him when it’s done. Tyson, Jackson etc don’t owe UNc anything.
 
HandsonFire said:
I’m confused. They got the year he played that they paid for. They have no hold on him when it’s done. Tyson, Jackson etc don’t owe UNc anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think CF got confused about the justification. It wouldn't be about compensation for the year, but rather compensation for the time spent on training, development, etc. In this sense, you could draw an analogy to a non-compete agreement, which lasts even past the expiration of the employment contract. You wouldn't need that here -- you could get the same result with two year contracts.

Of course, universities have ALWAYS wanted asymmetric departure rights -- a player has to sit a year after transferring, but the school can withdraw the scholarship without penalty. Doing two year contracts would bind both parties.
 
HandsonFire said:
I’m confused. They got the year he played that they paid for. They have no hold on him when it’s done. Tyson, Jackson etc don’t owe UNc anything.
Click to expand...
Probably just poor wording.

What is believe he means and I agree with, is that we have contracts to help build some consistency. If the school is expected to pay top dollar, they should be able to sing a contract for a number of years to provide the consistency. That probably means a collective bargaining agreement.
 
Last edited:
UNCatTech said:
Probably just poor wording.

What is believe he means and I agree with, is that we have contracts to help build some consistency. If the school is expected to pay top dollar, they should be able to sing a contract for a number of years yo provide the consistency. That probably means a collective bargaining agreement.
Click to expand...
As well as the ability to fine for violations. If you are getting paid, enough coddling and be treated like an adult professional with responsibilities.
 
UNCatTech said:
Probably just poor wording.

What is believe he means and I agree with, is that we have contracts to help build some consistency. If the school is expected to pay top dollar, they should be able to sing a contract for a number of years yo provide the consistency. That probably means a collective bargaining agreement.
Click to expand...
I've been in the room when lawyers read contract language over the phone to a client. I've never heard any singing, though. nycfan?
 
I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And, man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my contract to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "unenforceable"
 
UNCatTech said:
Probably just poor wording.

What is believe he means and I agree with, is that we have contracts to help build some consistency. If the school is expected to pay top dollar, they should be able to sing a contract for a number of years yo provide the consistency. That probably means a collective bargaining agreement.
Click to expand...
Would that mean the school also must honor the contract?
 
superrific said:
Yeah, I think CF got confused about the justification. It wouldn't be about compensation for the year, but rather compensation for the time spent on training, development, etc. In this sense, you could draw an analogy to a non-compete agreement, which lasts even past the expiration of the employment contract. You wouldn't need that here -- you could get the same result with two year contracts.

Of course, universities have ALWAYS wanted asymmetric departure rights -- a player has to sit a year after transferring, but the school can withdraw the scholarship without penalty. Doing two year contracts would bind both parties.
Click to expand...

UNCatTech said:
Probably just poor wording.

What is believe he means and I agree with, is that we have contracts to help build some consistency. If the school is expected to pay top dollar, they should be able to sing a contract for a number of years yo provide the consistency. That probably means a collective bargaining agreement.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top