Pay for play is not allowed. But that’s not precisely what the deal is for Caleb Cunningham to come to EMU. There is no specific requirement that he play. Just as there is no requirement for Paige or Azzi to play in order to be compensated by Gatorade and Chipotle respectively.
Perhaps I was somewhat vague. If a baseball umpire can use the "travesty of the game" rule to correct something not specifically covered under the rules, he could make the necessary change to remove the advantage.Rule 7:08i was put in place by Baseball in 1911, after a player with the Washington Senators named Germany Schaefer stole 2nd base, trying to draw a throw from the catcher so a teammate on 3rd base could try to score. When the catcher did not throw down to second base, on the next pitch, Schaefer proceeded to steal first base. He was not the first player to do so, but he was the last as MLB subsequently passed Rule 7:08i (travesty of the game), the sole provision of which was that a player was deemed to be out if they ran the bases in reverse order.
Rule 7:08i should not be confused with Rule 8, Section 2 which requires a runner to touch all bases in reverse order, to return to his original base, if he is running when a fly ball is caught by the opposing team.
Not sure what any of this has to do with NIL, but it certainly is an interesting sidetrack to this thread.
Appreciate the clarification. I would make the point that there is no provision for a baseball umpire to correct something not specifically covered under the rules. The “travesty of the game” rule, is an actual rule that was put in place by Baseball in 1911 to correct one specific issue: running the bases in reverse order. It is not as you suggest a blanket catchall to correct any and all egregious actions not otherwise covered under the existing rules of baseball.
OK and point taken. How would you solve this then. A totally free market society needs some type of regulation. That is the value of anti-trust regulation that encourages competition by limiting the market power of any particular firm. The obvious goal was to not overly concentrate market power or form monopolies, as well as breaking up firms that have become monopolies.
By virtue of roster/scholarship limits there is a limit to the market power of any particular firm [school]. Also be careful what you wish for because you're making the argument that could easily be used against the women's basketball team which seems to have a monopoly on the top recruit in almost every recruiting class.
UConn's so-called player monopoly -- which is shared by USC, Baylor in the past, Stanford, others -- hasn't been financially driven. (UConn only rarely has the #1 recruiting class, btw). It was success driven. They compete for players on the same level playing field that any other school does. USC and UConn don't provide any additional financial inducements that any other school can offer. Anti-trust behavior inherently involves financial factors in some way.
UConn women's basketball has grabbed the top recruit in 7 of the last 10 classes. It's about as much of a monopoly on the best player as you'll ever find in college sports including football and men's basketball. Also you're forgetting one thing. You dislike this new setup, but the schools themselves are the ones that wanted it and it would be naive to believe that there's no one in the decision making process that couldn't foresee these "issues." No, this is all by design as NCAA rules are set by the member institutions. We as fans don't really get a say, and if we dislike it, we can simply stop watching. Sports viewership in general is in decline as younger generations simply spread their attention over a wider array of entertainment options.
In the words of Groucho Marx, “Who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?”
$13.97 if you can get that 2 cent guy to kick in.
What year was the Anti-Trust legislation enacted? I think the Teddy bear was created then.
This isn't about what anyone likes or wants. The P5 schools may have wanted a system without walls or ceilings, but it's going to create unintended consequences for the P5 schools they will absolutely regret or will be unsustainable. You don't need to be a futurist to see an enormous cliff approaching.
www.espn.com
I am completely clueless about this BUT as you all know when it comes to mens B-ball and football and big money players like the NCAA ESPN etc
