smh said:

---

fwiw (nada) seems like i've aged out of basketball interest, men's esp
# things change

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

It would require a literal act of Congress, but since they aren't doing much of anything else with our new autocracy maybe they have time to look into it?

Problem is the SEC and B1G, especially sports fans, are heavily MAGA, MAGA controls Congress, and right now, under the status quo, they are "winning." Like other issues they don't see that they are part of a whole and that their health depends on the health of the ecosystem they operate in.

---

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

It would require a literal act of Congress, but since they aren't doing much of anything else with our new autocracy maybe they have time to look into it?

Problem is the SEC and B1G, especially sports fans, are heavily MAGA, MAGA controls Congress, and right now, under the status quo, they are "winning." Like other issues they don't see that they are part of a whole and that their health depends on the health of the ecosystem they operate in.

---

Forming a new Div 1 football-basketball player's union and universities engaging in collective bargaining would require an act of Congress? That's funny, I thought universities already do that with students who perform essential services for the school, like graduate students who do most of the teaching and lab work.
But somehow this is legally impossible for a different class of students that also performs an essential function for the school?
Sometimes we just lack imagination or have a collective action problem to overcome. Or we kowtow to the needs of a few students who like their multimillion dollar contracts at the expense of their teammates who aren't making a dime.

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

It would require a literal act of Congress, but since they aren't doing much of anything else with our new autocracy maybe they have time to look into it?

Problem is the SEC and B1G, especially sports fans, are heavily MAGA, MAGA controls Congress, and right now, under the status quo, they are "winning." Like other issues they don't see that they are part of a whole and that their health depends on the health of the ecosystem they operate in.

---

Forming a new Div 1 football-basketball player's union and universities engaging in collective bargaining would require an act of Congress? That's funny, I thought universities already do that with students who perform essential services for the school, like graduate students who do most of the teaching and lab work.
But somehow this is legally impossible for a different class of students that also performs an essential function for the school?
Sometimes we just lack imagination or have a collective action problem to overcome. Or we kowtow to the needs of a few students who like their multimillion dollar contracts at the expense of their teammates who aren't making a dime.

---

In order to collectively bargain and agree to salary caps, the union would have to cover all the athletes at all 330 NCAA D1 schools and include high school prospects, many under 18. And the membership would be subject to constant turnover. Moreover, many of the wealthiest programs are in anti-union "right to work" states.

So a top prospect could sign with Kentucky, refuse to join the union, and be paid whatever Kentucky boosters want to pay him. The school cannot legally force him to join the union. Under those circumstances, why would the top prospects join the union? They have no incentive to. And if the top prospects and the big schools are not playing the salary cap game, there is no salary cap.

The conditions that lead to the players unions agreeing to salary caps in the NFL, NBA and MLB simply do not exist in college sports. Too many players and potential players, too many schools, not enough incentive, so it is just not enforceable.

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

It would require a literal act of Congress, but since they aren't doing much of anything else with our new autocracy maybe they have time to look into it?

Problem is the SEC and B1G, especially sports fans, are heavily MAGA, MAGA controls Congress, and right now, under the status quo, they are "winning." Like other issues they don't see that they are part of a whole and that their health depends on the health of the ecosystem they operate in.

---

Forming a new Div 1 football-basketball player's union and universities engaging in collective bargaining would require an act of Congress? That's funny, I thought universities already do that with students who perform essential services for the school, like graduate students who do most of the teaching and lab work.
But somehow this is legally impossible for a different class of students that also performs an essential function for the school?
Sometimes we just lack imagination or have a collective action problem to overcome. Or we kowtow to the needs of a few students who like their multimillion dollar contracts at the expense of their teammates who aren't making a dime.

---

In order to collectively bargain and agree to salary caps, the union would have to cover all the athletes at all 330 NCAA D1 schools and include high school prospects, many under 18. And the membership would be subject to constant turnover. Moreover, many of the wealthiest programs are in anti-union "right to work" states.

So a top prospect could sign with Kentucky, refuse to join the union, and be paid whatever Kentucky boosters want to pay him. The school cannot legally force him to join the union. Under those circumstances, why would the top prospects join the union? They have no incentive to. And if the top prospects and the big schools are not playing the salary cap game, there is no salary cap.

The conditions that lead to the players unions agreeing to salary caps in the NFL, NBA and MLB simply do not exist in college sports. Too many players and potential players, too many schools, not enough incentive, so it is just not enforceable.

---

There is some complicated labor law that gets at how pro teams in right to work states continue to have to operate under a variety of the rules set in place by the various collective bargaining agrements. It isn't this cut and dry. The age and turnover is less of an issue - there are numerous unions in the retail space that have members as young as 16.

---

barsad said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

If anything the level of play I'm seeing right now in the Final Four is better than it's ever been. Nothing "sterile" about these teams, they're playing great defense… yet Auburn and Florida both shot in the high 50s on FG for the first 6 min. Great basketball.
But when there are no Cinderellas, that tells me that parity is a thing of the past and this will become like the women's game, where every great player is on the same list of 20 teams every year (no offense to the ladies, that's just how it's been historically).
If we want more parity, leaving all this to the free market (highest bidder) is not the way to go to see another St. Peter's, George Mason or Davidson (Steph Curry would have never made it to the Elite Eight in today's tournament).
But… arguing against myself here… I have heard that the NIL system has been good for players like Walter Clayton Jr, who just dropped 34 on Auburn and is headed to the national championship game on Monday. In the old system would he have toiled in obscurity at Iona and never reached the big stage? Not sure (there have always been transfers), but it's a decent counterargument, because guys like him need their shot at the NBA.

---

Parity requires mechanisms that restrict player movement. Under current laws that means collective bargaining which is in place in professional sports. Right now it is bizzare that are far fewer restrictions on player movements in the college game than in the pros.

---

Yup, pro players have actual multi-year contracts that prevent the bulk of them from just moving anywhere they want at any time. College sports needs some mechanism like that or else it's just a mess.

---

It would require a literal act of Congress, but since they aren't doing much of anything else with our new autocracy maybe they have time to look into it?

Problem is the SEC and B1G, especially sports fans, are heavily MAGA, MAGA controls Congress, and right now, under the status quo, they are "winning." Like other issues they don't see that they are part of a whole and that their health depends on the health of the ecosystem they operate in.

---

Forming a new Div 1 football-basketball player's union and universities engaging in collective bargaining would require an act of Congress? That's funny, I thought universities already do that with students who perform essential services for the school, like graduate students who do most of the teaching and lab work.
But somehow this is legally impossible for a different class of students that also performs an essential function for the school?
Sometimes we just lack imagination or have a collective action problem to overcome. Or we kowtow to the needs of a few students who like their multimillion dollar contracts at the expense of their teammates who aren't making a dime.

---

In order to collectively bargain and agree to salary caps, the union would have to cover all the athletes at all 330 NCAA D1 schools and include high school prospects, many under 18. And the membership would be subject to constant turnover. Moreover, many of the wealthiest programs are in anti-union "right to work" states.

So a top prospect could sign with Kentucky, refuse to join the union, and be paid whatever Kentucky boosters want to pay him. The school cannot legally force him to join the union. Under those circumstances, why would the top prospects join the union? They have no incentive to. And if the top prospects and the big schools are not playing the salary cap game, there is no salary cap.

The conditions that lead to the players unions agreeing to salary caps in the NFL, NBA and MLB simply do not exist in college sports. Too many players and potential players, too many schools, not enough incentive, so it is just not enforceable.

---

There is some complicated labor law that gets at how pro teams in right to work states continue to have to operate under a variety of the rules set in place by the various collective bargaining agrements. It isn't this cut and dry. The age and turnover is less of an issue - there are numerous unions in the retail space that have members as young as 16.

---

Yes. We need to stop saying "can't be done" and start saying "it must be done" to keep some semblance of order to the rosters every year. There are national unions, they do operate in red states, and they do have many more thousands of members than there are D1 college athletes.
The old, "It's better to give an apology later than ask for permission now" adage applies here.

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

"Unions work best when there is a standard job and not much difference between workers, or employers, so the workers can collectively bargain for a standard wage payable by all employers."
Players unions represent workers with "not much difference" between workers?
I've been a member of several different unions, public and private sector, and this "standard" pay and work thing you're talking about isn't what the reality is. Unions are about "raising all boats," the highly paid and the minimally paid, and players will realize that if anyone had the balls to organize.

---

I too have been a member of unions and was the chief economist for the maritime organization that manages the contract for the most powerful union in the world, the International Longshore Workers Union, who provides the labor for all cargo coming into and out of the West Coast (and Hawaii). I LWU workers make over $100k per year on average and some crane operators can make as much as $500k, but they do that within the standard contract. It is a strong union because it has leverage and makes sense for ALL its members.

The best opportunity to form a college players union was when they were all unpaid. Then the union would "lift all boats."

The problem is the idea that all the players would form a union specifically to agree to salary caps and restrictions on player movement. Even if they formed a union, why would they want to agree to limit their pay and freedom? I just don't see the benefit for the players (top players in particular) in this case. Maybe to establish a minimum wage, but not salary caps. The reason we want it is for the fans, especially of teams that can't pay as much. If individual players want to stay with one school for 4 years they can already do that. That is why I think any restrictions on player movement and income will have to come from the top down, which can only happen with congressional action.

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

"Unions work best when there is a standard job and not much difference between workers, or employers, so the workers can collectively bargain for a standard wage payable by all employers."
Players unions represent workers with "not much difference" between workers?
I've been a member of several different unions, public and private sector, and this "standard" pay and work thing you're talking about isn't what the reality is. Unions are about "raising all boats," the highly paid and the minimally paid, and players will realize that if anyone had the balls to organize.

---

I too have been a member of unions and was the chief economist for the maritime organization that manages the contract for the most powerful union in the world, the International Longshore Workers Union, who provides the labor for all cargo coming into and out of the West Coast (and Hawaii). I LWU workers make over $100k per year on average and some crane operators can make as much as $500k, but they do that within the standard contract. It is a strong union because it has leverage and makes sense for ALL its members.

The best opportunity to form a college players union was when they were all unpaid. Then the union would "lift all boats."

The problem is the idea that all the players would form a union specifically to agree to salary caps and restrictions on player movement. Even if they formed a union, why would they want to agree to limit their pay and freedom? I just don't see the benefit for the players (top players in particular) in this case. Maybe to establish a minimum wage, but not salary caps. The reason we want it is for the fans, especially of teams that can't pay as much. If individual players want to stay with one school for 4 years they can already do that. That is why I think any restrictions on player movement and income will have to come from the top down, which can only happen with congressional action.

---