Romello Height is in the portal

[Root4GT]

It's hard to tell how much a top 25 recruiting class helps us in this new world to be honest. Sure, we probably spent alot for a pretty good recruiting class. How many of those guys are we going to spend 1-2 years developing into good players only to see them take a huge bag to play elsewhere?

It beats the Hell out of recruiting a bad HS class that no one wants any of the players!

Teams need to recruit good HS players, good players currently on their team and good players in the Transfer Portal!

 

[HouseDivided]

I've largely tuned out the portal and recruiting in general since it's the wild west of free agency now and unlimited at that. Losing Height hurts. Best DL we had last season.

That said, who do we have returning along the DL with any type of snaps and production? I haven't kept up with it....Biggers? Van Den Berg?

 

[LargeFO]

I've largely tuned out the portal and recruiting in general since it's the wild west of free agency now and unlimited at that. Losing Height hurts. Best DL we had last season.

That said, who do we have returning along the DL with any type of snaps and production? I haven't kept up with it....Biggers? Van Den Berg?

Biggers out of eligibility.

Harris gone. Robinson gone. Gore gone. Scott gone. Lockett portal. Basically Van Der Berg as far as any snaps.

 

[LargeFO]

Forgot Sylvain…gone.

 

[CEB]

Forgot Sylvain…gone.

 

[iceeater1969]

Forgot Sylvain…gone.

We now have a general manager over nil portal $.

Must work with the coaching about style of play as well as $.

Imo, singleton would have stayed at reduced $ if """Mid year""" coaches and es agreed THAT NEXT YEAR to have way less tunnel screens and way more down field throws (uga game plan vs runn the bawwl). Please trust us not some one else. King is trusting us. Also Imo, keeping es would send big time message AND WE HAVE CASH FLOW AVAILABLE.

 

[cpf2001]

You said:

“All the sports leagurs also have some antitrust exemption.”

I don’t think that statement is accurate.


“In the US, three of the four major professional sports leagues do not have any general exemption from Federal antitrust laws. In a court challenge, all major leagues except baseball, would be subject to the antitrust laws under the Rule of Reason analysis, but generally not under the stricter per se rule. Because of this, leagues and clubs are able to counter an accusation of anticompetitive behavior with justification based on the special circumstances inherent in maintaining a professional league.”

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1321&context=mslj



“To protect the rights of workers, unions were formed to negotiate employment contracts collectively in order to achieve a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In the sports industry, the unions that represent the players are called players associations. Labor and antitrust issues are governed primarily by federal statutes.

Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey have all had legal battles involving the application of the antitrust laws. Baseball has held a unique exemption from antitrust laws in accordance with the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs(1922). The Court held that antitrust laws do not apply to professional baseball.

The case, Flood v. Kuhn, (407 U.S. 258,) eventually went to the Supreme Court. Flood’s attorney, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, asserted that the reserve clause depressed wages and limited players to one team for life. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, acting on stare decisis “to stand by things decided”, ruled 5-3 in favor of Major League Baseball, upholding the 1922 ruling in the case of Federal Baseball Club v. National League.

Ironically, even though Curt Flood lost the lawsuit, the reserve clause was struck down in 1975. Arbitrator Peter Seitz ruled that since pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally played for one season without a contract, they could become free agents. This decision essentially dismantled the reserve clause and opened up the door to free agency.”

https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues-in-sports/

Yeah.

You don't need Congress to have a sports league CBA under existing judicial precedence.

I linked to this other page earlier https://www.lw.com/admin/upload/Sit...Antitrust-Exemption-Risk-In-Sports-Unions.pdf but was on my phone and couln't copy-paste - this is the most succint summary I've seen.

It's a union law precedent thing, not a congressional sports-league-specific thing.

Specifically, an agreement that is alleged to restrain trade is shielded from antitrust liability if it primarily
affects the parties to the agreement; concerns a condition of employment that is a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining; and is the result of bona fide, arm's length collective bargaining.[5]
The nonstatutory exemption derives from federal labor statutes, which delegate authority to
the National Labor Relations Board and seek to promote collective bargaining and good faith
coordination of wages, hours and working conditions.[6] Without an antitrust exemption, meaningful
collective bargaining could be chilled altogether.[7]
The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly recognized, in California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway Inc. in 2011, that the
nonstatutory exemption does not only apply to a final agreement between an employer and the union,
but importantly the exemption protects the collective bargaining process as a whole, including before an
initial collective bargaining agreement is approved and for a period after the agreement expires.[8

The congressional exemption for pro sports leagues (other than baseball which has it's own thing) is around broadcast rights. Detailed here as well: https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/USandEuropeExemption.pdf

Professional baseball, football, hockey, and basketball are statutorily ex-
empt from US antitrust laws for the purpose of collectively selling the rights to
television broadcasts of games. See Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1291-95 (1961). Broadcasting rights are beyond the scope of this Article. All
four are also exempt as far as labor relations are concerned, baseball by statute and
the remaining three by the non-statutory labor exemption for collective bargaining
agreements.

I have not found or seen anyone link any sources to the contrary, but this canard comes up over and over when CBAs are brought up.

 

[roadkill]

Those games are part of the ACC TV packet so GT does not lose money playing them. P4 teams need wins to become better, get to a Bowl Game and increase fan interest in the Program. GT always plays UGA (extremely hard game) and one more P4/ND game. That is 10 tough or Peer games (with 8 conference games). Need a couple of likely wins every year!

100% agree with the bolded part – and I have expressed essentially the same sentiment in other threads.

I didn’t mean for my post to seem like I favored dropping the rent-a-win game. I simply was puzzled by the inference from @stinger78 that it helped our budget. I remain unconvinced that it is revenue-positive unless the marginal value of that single FCS game in the ACCN deal is larger than I expected.

What I could envision is for P4 programs to go to an 11-game regular season like it was a couple of decades ago, in order to compensate for an increased number of CFP games, should the CFP continue to expand.

 

[roadkill]

Respectfully disagree. Yes, the NCAA made a hash of it, but what’s happening now was bound to happen through the courts with the rapid commercialization of college football and basketball. Was the NCAA part and parcel of that? Yes, but the original hole in the dam was the 1984 decision to open up TV negotiation rights to the schools.

Had that gone to court the NCAA would have lost as they have on virtually lawsuit brought against them. Paying players was eventually going to happen. The NCAA simply failed to try and establish reasonable guidelines before the Courts ruled against the Old System.

Some history may be in order here - when TV broadcasting was a new thing, the NCAA decided to restrict schools from televising their games under the premise that it would hurt attendance. As the potential revenue from broadcasting games grew, the NCAA stubbornly stuck to its outdated policy. Finally, in 1984, Oklahoma and uga sued the NCAA for restricting their free market rights. It went all the way to the Supreme Court where they decided against the NCAA.

If the NCAA had been reasonable and adapted to a changing market, they wouldn't keep losing so many lawsuits. This issue, and the current situation with NIL, lies squarely at the feet of the NCAA, not the Feds.