Phil Parker makes noteworthy comment about Oregon’s NIL

[HawkeyeHypnosis]

Since when is saying something that is 100% and varifiably true controversial? I know that Gundy said something about it earlier this year that fired up Lanning, but it was much more specific and critical of what Oregon was doing. If Oregon gets all butt hurt every time someone points out that they have a much greater salary pool for its players than 95% of its competition, then stop paying so much. Fucking entitled babies.....

Now I really want to kick their ass.

This is a lot of what’s going on in my mind. The comment was literally one tiny sentence within a full response where he was nothing but complimentary. Ducks just treading water trying to and fuel to their bye week. I enjoy a little ribbing from the coaches every once in a while but this really wasn’t anything.

 

[Fryowa]

Since when is saying something that is 100% and varifiably true controversial? I know that Gundy said something about it earlier this year that fired up Lanning, but it was much more specific and critical of what Oregon was doing. If Oregon gets all butt hurt every time someone points out that they have a much greater salary pool for its players than 95% of its competition, then stop paying so much. Fucking entitled babies.....

Now I really want to kick their ass.

Phil Parker did that in the most savage way possible and I love it.

He threw it right in the middle of a long response of compliments, very slight raised voice and emphasis when he said the words, "well-funded," and then he moved right along into his next sentence, not allowing a reporter to latch on and make him explain it. He didn't end his reply with that which would've been awkward silence and lead to clarification questions. Kill-'em-with-kindness-and-reality response and don't dwell on it. Nothing he said was untrue and he left no possible rebuttal by Oregon other than a butt-hurt response, and I don't think Lanning is dumb enough to take beef with a 21 year B1G DC who's arguably the most respected in the sport and best to ever do it over that span of years.

Absolute masterclass in taking a shot at someone.

 

[ICHawk24]

Phil spoke for 18 minutes and made one tiny comment 30 seconds from the end of his time.

Everyone needs to grow up.

And don't Oregon fans and any major power brag about how powerful they are? But if you in any way hint that money has a tiny bit of correlation, they go crazy.

 

[Fryowa]

Phil spoke for 18 minutes and made one tiny comment 30 seconds from the end of his time.

Everyone needs to grow up.

And don't Oregon fans and any major power brag about how powerful they are? But if you in any way hint that money has a tiny bit of correlation, they go crazy.

Who needs to grow up?

I haven't heard one Hawk fan say anything bad about it and I haven't heard any Duck fans bitching about it either.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Who needs to grow up?

I haven't heard one Hawk fan say anything bad about it and I haven't heard any Duck fans bitching about it either.

Its funny, because in my FB feed I have seen "Iowa DC Highly Complimentary of Ducks Organization" all the way to "Iowa DC provides bulletin board material for Ducks."

If a glib statement like that is what you need to get fired up, you be you. That said, Lanning is one of the best culture coaches in CFB. If he can use something, he will.

Also, even if this were the Gundy situation, which it is not, Gundy was powerless to back-up his words. Phil Parker carries a big stick and his boys will have his back.

 

[Fryowa]

Its funny, because in my FB feed I have seen "Iowa DC Highly Complimentary of Ducks Organization" all the way to "Iowa DC provides bulletin board material for Ducks."

I don't have facebook so that's probably it. I'm sheltered.

 

[Fryowa]

Also, even if this were the Gundy situation, which it is not, Gundy was powerless to back-up his words. Phil Parker carries a big stick and his boys will have his back.

That statement will probably fire up Iowa's defense more than Oregon.

 

[hawkinn3]

What’ll be funny is when the money gets so big players stay in college for the money. Also since the whole amateur aspect is bs now when will the 4 year thing go away?

 

[HawkeyeHypnosis]

What’ll be funny is when the money gets so big players stay in college for the money. Also since the whole amateur aspect is bs now when will the 4 year thing go away?

I’m just afraid of kids bouncing from school to school every single year. You may as well throw your name out there after every year to see what kind of money is being offered.

 

[Fryowa]

I’m just afraid of kids bouncing from school to school every single year. You may as well throw your name out there after every year to see what kind of money is being offered.

Schools need to band together and say they're not going to sign anyone until they turn 18, and then they can institute 5 year contracts (redshirt year) with payback clauses and buyouts. Sounds dumb but this is just semi-pro football now, nothing to do with college at this point.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Schools need to band together and say they're not going to sign anyone until they turn 18, and then they can institute 5 year contracts (redshirt year) with payback clauses and buyouts. Sounds dumb but this is just semi-pro football now, nothing to do with college at this point.

That is the closing argument for the multi-billion dollar antitrust conspiracy lawsuit. That's all they would have to prove at trial. This is what they did. See Fry's statement above. Pay us actual, treble, punitives, attorneys fees, injunctions, first-born child....

This problem is only solvable through collective bargaining or Congress.

 

[Fryowa]

That is the closing argument for the multi-billion dollar antitrust conspiracy lawsuit. That's all they would have to prove at trial. This is what they did. See Fry's statement above. Pay us actual, treble, punitives, attorneys fees, injunctions, first-born child....

This problem is only solvable through collective bargaining or Congress.

That would be tough to plead in my opinion.

1) athletic departments could show there was tangible harm being done to them in lost money by kids just leaving on a whim, and 2) they're already a monopoly. Antitrust law from what I learned staying at a Holiday Inn is based on the presumption that Party A is conspiring to restrict trade amongst competition and in effect create a monopoly. In this situation there is no competition. If two different say, industry associations of concrete manufacturers existed and members of one of them colluded to do something that would wipe out the other, I could see it. In this instance all schools from the entire "industry" would be banding together to protect their financial interests. And there's ample evidence of how all schools shoulder 100% of the financial risk.

As long as all schools agreed to it there'd still be the same amount of competition for players, it would just require contracts to be put in effect and enforced. Players can still leave, they'd just have to pay back the outstanding balance on the contract (i.e. the poaching school would have to pay). It's no different than college coaches being required to sign contracts containing duty to mitigate clauses and buyout requirements.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

That would be tough to plead in my opinion.

1) athletic departments could show there was tangible harm being done to them in lost money by kids just leaving on a whim, and 2) they're already a monopoly. Antitrust law from what I learned staying at a Holiday Inn is based on the presumption that Party A is conspiring to restrict trade amongst competition and in effect create a monopoly. In this situation there is no competition. If two different say, industry associations of concrete manufacturers existed and members of one of them colluded to do something that would wipe out the other, I could see it. In this instance all schools from the entire "industry" would be banding together to protect their financial interests. And there's ample evidence of how all schools shoulder 100% of the financial risk.

As long as all schools agreed to it there'd still be the same amount of competition for players, it would just require contracts to be put in effect and enforced. Players can still leave, they'd just have to pay back the outstanding balance on the contract (i.e. the poaching school would have to pay). It's no different than college coaches being required to sign contracts containing duty to mitigate clauses and buyout requirements.

You are mixing up concepts in anti-trust law. Monopolies meant to destroy competitors in horizontal market places is not what we are talking about. We are talking about vertical restraint of trade between a group of competitive employers conspiring to hold down market forces within their collective work forces.

Here, you have a group of competitors in the market place (in this case, large Universities that are actively competing against one another for the best employees (athletes) in the marketplace). They are then conspiring to create rules that will, by design, lower competition and market power that the employees have. Competitors cannot conspire to control compensation or workforce terms in that way.

If that were not the case, the professional leagues would just do what you say. They can't. So, the professional leagues all have to collectively bargain with the workers/athletes.

Here is the best example of what I am talking about. The tech companies all got together and agreed not to poach each other's talent because it was so disruptive to the businesses with the talent moving from job to job. They wanted stability. Sounds familiar, right? So, they quietly agreed not to hire people away from each other. Half a billion in settlements along with the DOJ reviewing criminal liability later, and they learned their lesson the hard way. What you are proposing above is even more blatant than what they did. It is very illegal under current law.

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fryowa]

You are mixing up concepts in anti-trust law. Monopolies meant to destroy competitors in horizontal market places is not what we are talking about. We are talking about vertical restraint of trade between a group of competitive employers conspiring to hold down market forces within their collective work forces.

Here, you have a group of competitors in the market place (in this case, large Universities that are actively competing against one another for the best employees (athletes) in the marketplace). They are then conspiring to create rules that will, by design, lower competition and market power that the employees have. Competitors cannot conspire to control compensation or workforce terms in that way.

If that were not the case, the professional leagues would just do what you say. They can't. So, the professional leagues all have to collectively bargain with the workers/athletes.

Here is the best example of what I am talking about. The tech companies all got together and agreed not to poach each other's talent because it was so disruptive to the businesses with the talent moving from job to job. They wanted stability. Sounds familiar, right? So, they quietly agreed not to hire people away from each other. Half a billion in settlements along with the DOJ reviewing criminal liability later, and they learned their lesson the hard way. What you are proposing above is even more blatant than what they did. It is very illegal under current law.

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don’t think it’s that black and white. The same sort of thing I suggested already happens on the coaching side. College coaches don’t use collective bargaining but can’t bounce from school to school willy nilly because of their contracts. If they leave within a set period of time they owe money.

I also don’t agree with the argument that it’s lowering competition and market power of players. That same market power will still exist, but it will exist on the front end rather than on the back end.

Now if you’re arguing that what I said is in a literal sense illegal because my post insinuates that schools gather round a table and collude overtly, I can see an argument for that. But there are several ways to skin cats.