BobTheDog

When I said "draft" I was referring to the draft proposal from the president's commission. Which is what all of the speculation about the contents of the senate bill is based on. The tweet about the contents of the senate bill was based on Ross Dellenger's tweets about the president's commission draft and subsequent statements by stakeholders. I directly referenced that document. Repeatedly. And because you were pontificating so assuredly about how this bill was not necessary because you think a 40 year old supreme court decision did the opposite of what it did, yes. I naively thought that you had actually read the document I repeatedly referrenced that you were repeatedly criticizing. A colossal waste of my time.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia Naively? I was responding to Mit’s quote Tweet about the contents of the Senate bill itself. Scroll up and look again. 😬

Very interesting that the Big Ten and SEC are two of the conferences that didn’t sign the letter. I think it’s safe to assume that means the Senate bill will include a provision allowing or requiring the consolidation of media rights.

I referred several times to the draft proposal that the Presidents commission released last week. Since the original tweet of this thread was about that, and since you have been asserting yourself so adamantly about this topic, I naively assumed you had read it. At least you finally put your cards on the table about how all you have read about what is happening today was written twenty years ago.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia Sorry…it seemed as if maybe you had seen an actual draft of the legislation and were referring to certain provisions elliptically with some of your responses. Maybe it was unintentional, but some of what you said sounded guarded.

@MrTPSM @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia I "Finally?" put my cards on the table about what's in the bill? WTF?

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia I also appreciate the polite exchange. As someone with a lot of experience in legislation, let me say that history is just another form of version control, not a desire to pontificate. Conversely, you finally put your cards on the table about what’s in the bill…

@Bomb3r_CFBMafia @MrTPSM @WinterSportsLaw @NCAA what were their screw ups?

@MrTPSM @RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw The single biggest mistake we could make is giving the @NCAA any more latitude or protections They have screwed this up for years, now they want a do-over🤦‍♂️

I appreciate the history, but we’re talking past each other. I see the need for antitrust protection so the NCAA can actually enforce roster/NIL rules without constant lawsuits. You seem skeptical any new legislation is needed. We’re not going to align here, so I’ll leave it at that. Thank you for engaging in a polite exchange.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia …the NCAA and defendant conferences agreed to change limits of compensation *voluntarily* and *independent of state law*. Federal law can’t protect you from the right of private parties to sign stupid deals.

@MrTPSM @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia thats great. but you still havent explained why you are saying this. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing and was in no way responsive to the post to which you were replying

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia The enforcement mechanism of the NCAA was predicated on the amount of TV revenue it received from the football contract. When that source went away in the 1980s, the NCAA had less resources to police more schools.

@GlammaSooz @MafiaMasshole @WKnoxGrott @DBeck57030037 @Proctor4Gov Everybody knows the stopping difference is zero feet after impact if the surface was wet and slippery from blue paint.

For all the Antis @MafiaMasshole @WKnoxGrott @DBeck57030037 @Proctor4Gov @MamaLama43 ANSWER THIS: IF Karen was going 24 mph in reverse, she would have traveled at least 100 feet AFTER hitting the brakes. She would have taken out all vehicles in the driveway of 34 Fairview ********************** For a 6,000 lb vehicle traveling at 24 mph in reverse, the total stopping distance is approximately 80 to 95 feet on dry, level pavement. This total distance is the sum of the "thinking distance" (reaction time) and the "braking distance" (physical stopping of the vehicle).Breakdown of Stopping DistanceReaction Distance (~53 feet): Assuming a standard reaction time of 1.5 seconds, a vehicle moving at 24 mph (35.2 ft/s) will travel roughly 52.8 feet before the driver even hits the brake pedal. Braking Distance (~27–42 feet):On dry asphalt (coefficient of friction \(\mu \approx 0.7\)), a typical vehicle takes about 27.5 feet to come to a halt after the brakes are applied.For a 6,000 lb vehicle, while basic physics suggests mass cancels out, real-world factors like brake efficiency and tire load often result in a slightly lower deceleration rate (around 0.5g to 0.6g), extending this portion to 35–42 feet. Factors Affecting Reverse Braking Braking in reverse at high speeds (24 mph is considered very fast for reversing) introduces significant instability: Weight Transfer: When braking hard in reverse, the vehicle's weight shifts toward the rear (the front of the vehicle in its direction of travel). Since most vehicles have more powerful brakes and better traction on the "true" front wheels, this weight shift can reduce overall braking effectiveness. Handling Instability: High-speed reversing is inherently unstable. Slamming the brakes at 24 mph in reverse can cause the vehicle to "fishtail" or spin because the steering wheels are now trailing the direction of travel, making it difficult to stop in a straight line. Road Conditions: On wet or slippery surfaces, the stopping distance can easily double, reaching over 150 feet ******************************** Unlike the McAlberts & Friends -- PHYSICS DOESN'T LIE

@charlie04922971 @stoolgambling @Blutman27 Why Virginia? There is no major pro league team in Virginia.

@stoolgambling @Blutman27 For everyone saying Jersey doesn’t count, Virginia and Kansas would count if we were going off stadium location.

Can you name the three states with EXACTLY ONE big 4 sports team @Blutman27

@irvin_dickerson @Genetics56 His knee was down.

@Genetics56 That USC vs texas game was epic.

The largets viewerships in college football history for singular games were before the BCS existed. Penn State vs Miami, if memory serves right, is the all-time record. Texas vs USC had roughly 36M viewers. last 2 sesons have been the most watch season totals - bigger conf games

@MrTPSM @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia Still waiting for you to explain what this post means. Who cares how much money the NCAA budgets towards enforcement if the rules they want to enforce are in violation of antitrust laws and are in conflict with the various state NIL laws?

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia The two issues are interrelated. When the NCAA first absorbed the existing TV deals in 1952 they used 5% of the revenue to do actual enforcement. And the judgment could have been rendered and then set aside pending appeal.

Geez, the screenshot you just posted proves my point. The Court said some NCAA rules, like rules on eligibility and amateurism, are okay because some cooperation among the competing schools is needed to preserve college sports as a product. But you seem to have missed the part in your highlighted text where the Court says the specific TV plan that let the NCAA control the entire media rights market was illegal. It was illegal for the same reason that what is being considered today would be illegal. Because it consolidated control over all College Football broadcasts to one entity, The NCAA. "It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable" HOWEVER "The specific restraints on football telecasts that are challenged in this case do not fit into the same mold." "The plan is nationwide in scope and there is no single league or tournament in which all college football teams complete." That’s why the NCAA lost and conferences got to do their own deals. Board of Regents took power away from the NCAA on media rights, not the other way around. You have it COMPLETELY backwards.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia I screenshot the section of the Board of Regents decision that addresses your question about the anti-trust concern. Namely, the NCAA has latitude to impose regulatory controls to enhance the public interest in intercollegiate athletics. The old plan just sucked, lol.

Suing the Ivy League for not giving athletic scholarships is like suing Jim Bob's Corner Wrench Emporium for refusing to match Home Depot’s prices. One's a tiny local shop with almost no market power. The other is a national cartel that controls the entire industry. The NCAA dominates the national market for elite athletic participation. The Ivies are just a neighborhood boutique that athletes can easily walk away from. That’s why House landed a massive settlement and Choh got tossed. The House settlement existed precisely because NCAA-wide rules were vulnerable as an admitted restraint on the national market for athlete services. Choh is a narrow, conference specific loss for athletes that doesn’t undo that. It’s apples-to-oranges. Alston already said, literally, that individual conferences can do what they want with regard to the market for athletic participation. Choh followed that precedent.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia Choh establishes that jut because you are athlete that meets a certain selectivity academically you are not a class for the purposes of anti-trust. It was decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year.

Forget the score act. It wont get past the Senate.without many amemdments, and then would have to go back to the house. That has been apparent to leadership on both sides in the Senate for months. Which is why Cruz got together with Cantwell months ago rather than wait for the Score Act. They are supposedly working on a bill that includes the student benefits that Cantwell's Safe Bill had and the protections the SCORE act has. Neither bill will pass if it doesnt get through the Senate Commerce committee. Thats why it appears leadership on both sides of the aisle agreed a couple months ago to have Cruz and Cantwell put together a comprehensive bill covering what the Dems and GOP need that can get the dem votes needed in the Senate without losing too many GOP votes in the House. I have explained, multiple times, that the media rights consolidation is just one item in this comprehensive bill. Yet you seem to want to cling to the notion that it is the central diving force behind this bill. It is not. It is just one of several things that they are trying to achieve. And just one of several things that antitrust protection can make possible. As to the need for an antitrust protection in order for the NCAA to take control of all media rights. Please explain HOW it is that Board of Regents supposedly gave the NCAA that power. You seem welded to rhe idea that Board of regents granted rhem that power rather than taking that power away.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia I don’t have an issue with the SCORE Act per se. I’m trying to understand what the need is for the Cruz-Cantwell bill. If it really is to to overturn Board of Regents then I’m just not seeing the need for an anti-trust exemption.

I get you're drawing historical parallels, but can you summarize in two or 3 sentences what you like or dislike about the SCORE Act specifically? And how it solves or doesn't solve the revenue share, Title IX, media rights issues we're discussing? It feels like you are taking me on one walk down memory lane after another without explaining where you are trying to go.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia …”to hand Congress a framework that could be built upon to get the legislative protection from antitrust and conflicting state laws the Supreme Court advised the NCAA to get from congress” Which is the SCORE Act?

You have not explained what Cho has to.do with the House decision. You have mentioned it several times. Like you ha e mentioned other occurances feom the past several times. But you have offered no rationale for how any.of those things relate to this particular legislation. Still waiting to find out what the NCAA's allocation of 5% of their revenue towards enforcement has to do with the NCAA's needing antitrust protection. You are just throwing out things that happened once without explaining why they matter. Of course things from the past CAN matter. But that doesnt mean that they MUST matter.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia You think that wars are fought only one front at a time? These are not new issues in college football. We are just entering a period of time when most people alive today have no recollection of what the 1970: were like and what that means for higher ed and labor law.

No, not OBVIOUS that they figured in what they would have lost in a judgement. It is as if you arent even reading what I am writing. A judgement against the NCAA in House and the related cases would have been as high as $30 Billion. Due upon final judgement. It would have meant the end of college sports. The House Settlement will cost a few billion dollars over ten years. It allows, but does not mandate, additional scholarships, benefits, and direct cash payments to student athletes that when combined with the previous levels of permitted scholarships, benefits and payments equals about 51% of estimated sports revenue. The settlement was made and structured as it is for multiple reasons. For the schools, it was to avoid insolvency, to overcome issues likely to surface in future compensation antitrust claims and to hand Congress a framework that could be built upon to get the legislative protection from antitrust and conflicting state laws the Supreme Court advised the NCAA to get from congress. For the plaintiffs, it was to get billions for the.certified class of former athletes and future billions through injunctive relief for the certified class of future athletes. It was never in the plaintiffs attorneys interest to bankrupt the schools, conferences and NCAA. It was in their interest to make a deal by which their clients could be paid in the future. The plaintiffs' attorneys made no employment claims. The settlement lets the NCAA pull out or modify the agreement if athletes are ruled employees and start collectively bargaining.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia Yes…but the parties agreed to a percentage revenue sharing consistent with pro leagues that collectively bargained.. So obviously they figured in a judgment that would be how the defendants were treated, and again no Choh caselaw out there to fall back on.

You keep on falling for the correlation = causation trap. This has nothing to do with the CFP expansion. This was in the works long before the tide turned on the SEC's favored 16 team CFP towards the B1G's favored 24 team CFP.and has been happening on a different plane than the CFP negotiations. The SEC is not in favor of media rights consolidation and refused to sign on to the letter supporting the Cantwell-Cuz effort. What would the Democrats be "caving" on? Cantwell's bill was focused on student benefits and had no chance of ever getting out of committee. Cuz is giving it a chance by adding things that the NCAA needs but that werent covered by her bill. She was never holding out against those things. She was just offering a bill that was focused on part of the issue. So getting some stuff passed that she wants in.exchange for some things that she wasnt interested in including isnt "caving." It is doing a deal.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia The idea that something has made Senate Democrats feel now is a good time to cave on whatever they have been holding out for in the Cantwell is not what I would put my money on. The bill is moving suddenly because the SEC wants leverage against the CFP expansion I would guess.

What difference does it make if you can appeal a judgement? Either you are willing to risk the cost of a trial AND appeals and FULL damages TIMES THREE due immediately upon final appeal, or you prefer to settle for ten times less payable over ten years. Saying, "sure, I'll go to court and risk financial ruin. I mean, if I lose, who knows? Maybe I'll win on appeal" makes no sense.

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia 2) I’ve never seen the pleadings on the actual House motions or settlement At the time, there was a very pro union administration and no Choh ruling so I could see where the NCAA feared the worst and signed a bad deal.

@MrTPSM @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia What does this have to do with ANYTHING we have been discussing?

@RealBobTheDog @WinterSportsLaw @Bomb3r_CFBMafia (Ellipsis time) 1) The NCAA did not have a full time staff until the national TV deals were ratified. Before that it operated out of the Big Ten’s closet…literally. Enforcement activity by the NCAA runs in parallel with TV revenue…