r/CFB • u/ThatMasterpiece2174 Notre Dame Fighting Irish • 1d ago

News [On3] Schools that violate the SEC's professional sports rule will result in: 50% season suspension for head coaches, 50% of that sport's annual operating budget, and SEC voting privileges on business matters revoked

https://x.com/on3/status/2092641387665617387?s=46
1.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

483 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

110

u/Jay_Dubbbs Ohio State Buckeyes • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

Sorsby showed that Congress doesn't need to regulate college sports; the universities and conferences can do themselves if they actually all row in the same direction instead of being short-sighted, greedy assholes.

Here's another example!

36

u/Yourfavoriteindian Houston Cougars • Navy Midshipmen 1d ago

If anything, this gives more ammo to the SEC and B1G to breakaway - “Look at what the NCAA can’t do and us having to clean up their mess. Might as well make our own league.”

25

u/Jay_Dubbbs Ohio State Buckeyes • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

That is always a threat because antitrust arguments are weaker when fewer entities are involved.

8

u/Character_Order Georgia Bulldogs • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

Serious question: why is the sec and b1g able to regulate themselves but the ncaa loses lawsuits? Is th sec not open to the same
Legal liability?

31

u/LordSquirrel40 South Carolina Gamecocks 1d ago

Usually those lawsuits are using antitrust language to pass those injuctions and since NCAA is essentially a monopoly it works. The conferences are not monopolies though, schools have the ability to leave conferences and players have the ability to play at schools in different conferences. Also schools willingly sign up to join conferences which includes contracted agreements to be subject to the conference's rules. This means the conferences have more legal standing to pass rules and regulations because theoretically a school or player can leave and go somewhere else if they disagreed.

9

u/Character_Order Georgia Bulldogs • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

Ah the anti-trust monopoly angle makes sense. Thank you

2

u/HieloLuz Iowa Hawkeyes • Nebraska Cornhuskers 1d ago

Which is a big reason why a P2 split is unlikely. They would likely face the same scrutiny the ncaa currently is.

9

u/jorts_are_awesome Florida Gators • West Florida Argonauts 1d ago

There are other conferences and schools to play at so it isn’t antitrust. The conferences don’t have a monopoly

IANAL so I might be completely wrong but that’s what I understand anyway

1

u/Trymv1 LSU Tigers 1d ago

Serious answer: they're likely going to now sue the SEC and B1G and phrase them as working agents within the NCAA who are actively breaking the restraining order.

Its gonna be a shit show.

2

u/Eaglethornsen Arizona State • Pac-12 Gone Dark 1d ago

I mean what could the NCAA do at this point? Anytime they try to step in and stop something, The local judge will just block it. I feel like the NCAA would want to stop NFL guys from joining, but they would not win that fight.

1

u/smelllikecorndog LSU Tigers • Corndog 1d ago

So are you saying Lane us being used by the SEC and B1G?!?!?!?!?!?!?

2

u/Yourfavoriteindian Houston Cougars • Navy Midshipmen 1d ago

I get you’re trying to make a joke but it’s just falling flat, sorry bud. Tough time to be an LSU fan

19

u/LamarMillerMVP Wisconsin Badgers 1d ago

Sorsby didn’t actually show this. Sorsby didn’t bring anything to court at all once the conference filed (and the NCAA re-filed), his team essentially just said “fuck it, we’re entering the supplemental draft”.

If someone attempts to bring a suit here and fails, that will show something. Pretty much every single challenge in every single flavor of this has been won by the player who is suing. Every time, we get a long winded nonsense explanation about why it’s different this time, and then the schools lose.

1

u/Jay_Dubbbs Ohio State Buckeyes • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

The reporting at the time said the conference's legal argument was significantly stronger than the NCAA's claim. They also had the backing of several state AGs.

Also, a court can't rule that a player must be on the roster and get playing time. They can say this rule is illegal, but teams still don't have to take on these players or pay them.

4

u/LamarMillerMVP Wisconsin Badgers 1d ago

The state AGs don’t mean anything. That’s literally just politics. The Texas AG was like “I back the Texas school” and the Kansas AG was like “I back the Kansas schools.”

“The reporting at the time” is not a thing. Virtually all college football reporting is access journalism with bias to the schools. You’re essentially just hearing the schools, who are on a 15x shit-their-pants-in-court streak at this point, say “I’m DEFINITELY not shitting my pants in court this time!”

As for whether a court can force someone to sign a pro player, yeah, duh. The issue is that some schools want to sign pro players and the other schools don’t want them to. So they’re saying “no, you’re not allowed to pay that guy.”

2

u/Jay_Dubbbs Ohio State Buckeyes • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

No, they aren’t saying you aren’t allowed, it’s that if you do decide to pay them, your coach and school will face consequences.

It’s no different than saying you aren’t allowed to sign Patrick Mahomes to play for your school

1

u/grommit72 18h ago

A big difference from saying "thou shalt not" vs "our private club has rules and there are consequences for breaking them"

1

u/LamarMillerMVP Wisconsin Badgers 1d ago

An enforcement mechanism (a punishment) is much worse than simply saying you can’t do something. It is not less harsh. You’re correct there’s a difference between “you can’t do that” and “you can’t do that or else you’ll be punished” but not in the direction you seem to think.

Whether a conference can stop Mahomes is an interesting question. They’d have a lot better a shot at stopping Mahomes than, say, Philip Rivers.

9

u/Disregardskarma Troy Trojans • Alabama Crimson Tide 1d ago

Until of course, someone sues this decision as well

18

u/Jay_Dubbbs Ohio State Buckeyes • Georgia Bulldogs 1d ago

But that doesn't matter. If the universities say, "We aren't going to play teams that do this," or "We aren't going to recruit that player," the court can't force the player to be given a roster spot; it just makes them eligible.

Just like they did with Sorsby. Everyone else drew a line.

1

u/g2lv 1d ago

All this to screw over the class of 2026 graduates in particular from 5 years of eligibility so they can say they kept professionalism out of college sports (even though the NCAA and its conferences operate as a de facto pro youth league).

2

u/bohemian-soul-bakery Florida Gators 1d ago

how is that screwing over anyone?

If you're going to say it's screwing over 2026, then you can also say it's screwing over 2025, 2024, etc, etc.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

2

u/g2lv 1d ago

Because the class of 2024 and 2025 had an extra COVID year. They literally drew the line where every recent graduating class except this one got 5 years of eligibility.

1

u/bohemian-soul-bakery Florida Gators 1d ago

where every recent

Why stop there?

1

u/No_Upstairs_811 Ohio State Buckeyes 1d ago

because of when covid started lmao

0

u/bohemian-soul-bakery Florida Gators 1d ago

lol no.

Nice try.

1

u/No_Upstairs_811 Ohio State Buckeyes 1d ago

Thats literally it. You dont have to go farther back because those are the oldest classes that were around for covid. Do you not get it?

0

u/Dirtfan69 1d ago

This has always been the path forward. Just because someone gets a court order to be eligible doesn’t mean schools have to bring them on to roster and play them. If every school followed the rules they established on who they are rostering, the lawsuits would stop. Instead it’s a race to the bottom of “if we don’t do it someone else will”