Sports_Report_With_Darik

#STLCards final Grapefruit League game has been played, but the Cardinals still not revealing final roster decisions on the position side. So it will carry over into the Springfield exhibition game on Monday.

Argument for the Big Ten Leaving the NCAA and Forming a New Top-Tier League That Doesn't Violate The Laws Of The United States In order for college athletics to stay out of the courts due to antitrust violations, Sherman Act violations and not violating interstate commerce, a split at the FBS is needed. I know that isn't what people want to hear and most folks will want to auto reject such action because their school wouldn't likely be involved in a new top tier. Thus, many folks who read my argument will automatically reject it before taking the time to read and digest what I'm saying. Thus, let's get into this. The Big Ten Conference stands at a crossroads in college athletics, where the NCAA's outdated governance, regulatory overreach, and resistance to modernization have stifled innovation and fairness. By seceding from the NCAA and establishing a new autonomous top-tier league in college athletics, potentially inviting select elite academic schools with strong financial support from other conferences, the Big Ten could create a streamlined, athlete-centric model, while still tethered to academics, that embraces market-driven economics while carefully avoiding violations of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act, or interstate commerce regulations. This new entity would eliminate revenue-sharing caps, fully welcome NIL deals (including those facilitated directly by the league's headquarters), and prioritize competitive equity without the bureaucratic drag of the NCAA. Below, I outline the rationale, legal safeguards, sources of friction with other conferences, why the Big Ten is uniquely positioned to lead, and critiques of opposing views. Legal Framework: Avoiding Antitrust, Sherman Act, and Interstate Commerce Violations A Big Ten-led league could be structured as a voluntary association of like-minded institutions, such as AAU status being required for universities outside of the Big Ten, operating as a private entity focused on interstate competition without engaging in anticompetitive practices. Key design elements to ensure compliance: No Collusive Restraints on Trade (Sherman Act Compliance): Unlike the NCAA's recent history of capping athlete compensation (deemed anticompetitive in cases like Alston v. NCAA, 2021) due to constraints agreed to in the House Settlement, the new league would impose no artificial limits on revenue sharing or NIL earnings. Schools could independently negotiate and distribute revenues based on their own financial models, avoiding any league-wide agreements that fix prices or suppress wages. This mirrors professional leagues like the NFL, which have navigated antitrust scrutiny by emphasizing pro-competitive benefits (e.g., parity through revenue sharing) without outright caps. The league could adopt opt-in revenue pooling for media rights, but only among willing participants, ensuring no coercion. The non-outright cap is regulated by free market pressures - the cash a school has is the cash available to spend. Thus, any school that joins a new top tier league in college athletics will need to prove that they have the financial resources and support to compete in a free market envrionment that doesn't require cutting Olympic sports. In fact, the requirement for membership can be above the limits that the NCAA currently requires, and require a larger threshold of total scholarships than current. Antitrust Safeguards: To dodge claims of monopolization or group boycotts, the league would remain open to expansion and competition from other entities (e.g., a rival super-league or remaining NCAA divisions). Governance would be decentralized, with decisions made via majority vote among members rather than a central cartel-like body. NIL deals, including those brokered by Big Ten HQ (e.g., conference-wide endorsement partnerships with brands), would be transparent and athlete-optional, promoting free market access rather than restricting it. This contrasts with NCAA rules that have repeatedly failed antitrust tests, as seen in the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement. Interstate Commerce Compliance: As college sports inherently involve interstate activities (travel, broadcasting), the league would comply with the Commerce Clause by not imposing barriers to trade across states. Media deals would be negotiated nationally, similar to current Big Ten contracts with Fox, CBS, and NBC, ensuring broad access and avoiding state-specific exclusions. Federal preemption isn't needed; the league could operate under existing laws, with disputes resolved in federal courts if necessary. This structure draws from successful models like Major League Soccer, which avoided antitrust pitfalls by emphasizing joint ventures that enhance competition. Legal experts, including those analyzed post-House reforms, note that voluntary associations without wage-fixing are generally lawful. Benefits: No Caps, Embracing NIL, and Athlete-Centric Focus Unlimited Revenue Sharing: Without NCAA - imposed caps (e.g., the 22% limit in the House settlement), Big Ten schools could share up to 50% or more of media revenues directly with athletes, potentially exceeding $30-40 million per school annually based on current distributions. NIL Integration: NIL would be celebrated, not regulated punitively. Big Ten HQ could centralize deal-making - e.g., negotiating conference-wide sponsorships (like a Big Ten-branded apparel line) and distributing proceeds equitably along side each member institution doing NIL deals. And, yes, media rights organizations can make NIL deals with athletes and schools. Including futures contracts. This eliminates the "hate" around NIL by making it a core revenue stream, with transparency rules to prevent pay-for-play abuses while allowing market-driven earnings. Athletes could earn millions without transfer restrictions, fostering stability. And, if you want to take it further, use Cronin's example of Birds Rights to retain players, if needed. By not having a revenue share cap, you slow down transfers between schools as schools can more easily pay to retain athletes. That helps solves the academic issues with mulitple transfers and the credit transfering issues. Overall Structure: A league focused on not just football and basketball, but Olympic sports too. Scheduling would prioritize high-value matchups, boosting TV ratings and revenues. Governance: A commissioner (e.g., expanding Tony Petitti's role) with input from athletic directors, emphasizing academics and mental health without NCAA's red tape. It's a Solution To Title IX: Without NCAA imposed revenue caps, the league's schools could more easily pay women athletes their real value and not be forced into a position where they could face a Title IX lawsuit because the majority of revenue dollars in a capped envrionment goes to one sport. This will help ensure women athletes get more revenue share funding from lucrative media rights deals. Centralized and decentralized NIL facilitation by Big Ten HQ and univeristies would promote inclusive deals, boosting opportunities for women in non-revenue sports like swimming or volleyball. This flexible structure allows real-time compliance audits and adjustments, fostering genuine parity - unlike the NCAA's rigid model, which risks litigation by concentrating benefits in men's football and basketball For example, at Penn State they spent $1M on revenue share to wrestling. If you look at Iowa's women's wrestling team, why shouldn't Kennedy Blades, a world class wrestler that has been competing for world championships for years not get paid $1M if Iowa and Mrs Blades agree to that type of payout with revenue share? That's the problem with a cap on revenue share. You have a lot of highly successful athletes not getting paid their truth worth. And that is also why a new top tier league for college athletics shouldn't include all of the current P4 schools. You need to be able to afford to pay athletes their truth worth, not mandated caps that are illegal without a CBA. Friction and Isolation from Pushback on Big Ten Proposals The Big Ten's forward-thinking proposals have consistently faced rejection from the NCAA and other FBS conferences, breeding resentment and highlighting the need for independence. For instance, in March 2026, Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti sent a letter urging the NCAA to pause tampering investigations and modernize rules, arguing they "cannot be credibly or equitably enforced" amid the transfer portal chaos. The NCAA and the SEC, ACC, Big 12 swiftly rejected this, citing ongoing enforcement needs, which exacerbated tensions. Similarly, Big Ten pushes for expanded revenue sharing and relaxed NIL guidelines have been stonewalled by other conferences fearing resource disparities. This pattern, seen in rejections of Big Ten proposals like the transfer portal, college football playoff formats, etc, has isolated the Big Ten from the broader FBS. The result: Friction manifested in stalled reforms, like the delayed College Football Playoff expansion, the stupidity of putting the transfer portal during the playoff and not after the conclusion of the spring semester, where Big Ten ideas for merit-based access are constantly rejected. This isolation underscores that the NCAA's consensus - driven model favors mediocrity over excellence, pushing the Big Ten toward secession to avoid perpetual gridlock. Why the Big Ten Must Lead, Not Another Conference The Big Ten is uniquely equipped to pioneer this new tier due to its financial supremacy, academic prestige, and geographic footprint. In FY2025, Big Ten schools generated over well $3.2 billion collectively, with juggernauts like Ohio State topping $300 million. Its media deal is the richest in college sports. And they already have a diverse set of TV partners, to go along with the Big Ten Network. They are not reliant on ESPN, as most conferences in college athletics have subjected themselves to be. Academically, Big Ten institutions rank among the top public universities, aligning with a pro-athlete model that emphasizes degrees. The 18 Big Ten schools do a combined $18B annually in research, and that number continues to go up every year. When you look at NIH funding, a lot of those research dollars go to Big Ten universities. Unlikelihood of SCORE Act Passage The SCORE Act aimes to codify the House settlement, standardize NIL, limit transfers, and grant NCAA antitrust immunity. However, by December 2025, Congress punted on a vote amid bipartisan opposition. As of March 2026, passage is unlikely due to not having the votes needed in Congress. Senate Resistance: Democrats like Sens. Maria Cantwell, Cory Booker, and Richard Blumenthal oppose antitrust exemptions, viewing them as favoring the NCAA over athletes. The bill needs 60 Senate votes; partisan divides make it improbable. Competing Bills: Alternatives like the SAFE Act prioritize athlete rights without immunity, fragmenting support. Harm from Amending the Sports Broadcasting Act Proposals to amend the 1961 SBA (e.g., Cantwell-Schmitt draft, March 2026) would allow FBS-wide media rights pooling. However, a Big Ten/SEC-commissioned study (Feb 2026) deems it "dangerously unworkable," harming the Big Ten due to revenue loss. Pooling dilutes premium deals due to the over saturation of content to bid on. When you are selling over 800 football games at the same time, that drives down the price of Michigan vs Ohio State. Scarcity has always been a driving force to price increases. I'm sorry to educate many on this true fact, but most FBS and FCS universities have no to very little media rights value in football. Critique of the Provided Article: Flaws and Antitrust Illegalities The article, x.com/PhysicalTherap… , ostensibly advocating for student-athletes (focusing on the "99%" not benefiting from NIL), is riddled with flaws and proposes reforms that violate antitrust laws. It romanticizes a broken system while ignoring economic realities. Flaws in Analysis: Misrepresents Data: Claims 31% of portal entrants (17,000+) are "stranded," but ignores that many choose lower divisions or pro paths voluntarily. Graduation rates (91% GSR) are dismissed in favor of the lower federal rate (68%), but the GSR accurately tracks transfers, proving the system works for many. Ignores Benefits for All: NIL's "tokenism" critique overlooks that even $1,000 deals empower non-revenue athletes. Revenue sharing post-House (up to $20.5M/school) will trickle down via Title IX, not just to football/basketball. Hypocritical on Priorities: Decries roster cuts (5,000 spots) but supports caps that would exacerbate inequalities. Self-Serving Narrative: Frames reforms as "aristocracy," yet proposes cross-subsidies that prop up inefficient programs at elites' expense. Antitrust Illegalities: Spending Caps: Calls for "hard and enforceable spending caps" on coaches/ADs—direct collusion to fix wages, violating Sherman Act Section 1 (restraint of trade). Courts have struck similar NCAA caps (Alston). Governing Body with Authority: A centralized entity enforcing rules (e.g., transfer limits) resembles a cartel, suppressing labor mobility - antitrust red flag, as in House v. NCAA. SBA Extension: Pooling rights could be seen as monopolization, reducing competition among conferences (Section 2 violation). Transfer/NIL Restrictions: Limiting transfers or mandating "equity standards" restrains athlete markets, inviting lawsuits under O'Bannon precedents. I provided that critque to illustrate a point. As we move forward in college athletics, and cost of winning continues to increase every year, such as the cost for revenue sharing under the Houst settlement, there is a financial division (fracturing) happening that many folks in college athletics don't want to admit is happening. Over the last many years and the last couple of decades, a lot of FBS schools added more sports and more scholarships than they can afford today. That leads to people demanding for changes, calls for help, and propoals of reform that violate Internstate Commerce, the Sherman Act, and Antritrust laws. The only way we are going to resolve the pressures of potential lawsuits due to violations of federal laws, is to create a new top tier league in college athletics that is reformed to fit the laws of the United States. That will allow schools that are not in the new top tier league the opportunity to compete against schools wit h similar resource levels and not having to beg their state for money, or increase student fees every year, don't need to take on private equity, and more. Many folks in college athletics need to face the truth - not everyone has the financial resources to compete at the highest levels anymore and you shouldn't destory your athletic departments by selling your soul to private equity. Those Super League proposals would be run and operated by private equity companies. Remember, private equity companies have one goal in mind - make money off of you. Thus, in closing, the Big Ten will need to be the conference to lead college athletics to the future. We can't, and shouldn't, try to go back to the days of 1 transfer. It is time to create a new top tier league in college athletics - led by all 18 members of the Big Ten - the 18 founders of the new league. If anyone wants to talk to me about this post, feel free to post a comment or send a private message.