https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35258190/massachusetts-go...
Linda Livingstone, chair of the NCAA's board of governors and Baylor University president, helped lead the search for a new president along with six others, including former Duke standout basketball player Grant Hill, now co-owner of the NBA's Atlanta Hawks. Livingstone said Baker stood out as a candidate because of his track record of building bipartisan consensus during a time when the NCAA is aiming to "engage and motivate" Congress to create federal legislation that will give the NCAA legal clearance to regulate how college athletes are compensated
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Athletic Directors and university presidents are begging congress to pass some sort of NIL legislation. I don't understand how/why this would fall to congress. Would love for a lawyer to explain this to me.
If you kick the can down the road long enough the government will have to try and fix it for brownie political points.
Plus where do you think eligibility for president and college athletes came from /s
2 Reasons. Congress can make rules faster than courts. Congress can make rules with more directive and more nuanced. Generally cheaper too.
For a court to make rules, someone would need to sue, then appeal to appellate court and appeal again to Supreme Court to make it national. Takes several years to a decade to do that. And when the Supreme CT makes rules, it is interpretive of current laws or of constitution, so it's often pretty vague.
Congress could promulgate a law in a few months, if enough support. Congress can put specific guidelines as long as it allowed by the Constitution.
And if you're wondering which part of the Constitution gives Congress power to do so, it's the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, a very broad power that allows Congress to regulate pretty much anything that involves exchange of money.
Edit: fixed a typo.
Also, the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear the case which would leave it at the Appellate Court level which may or may not result in something substantive.
True, but Appellate courts are regional and can be conflicting. If the 9th circuit makes one decision and the 5th circuit makes a countering decision, (i.e., the most liberal and most conservative appellate courts), then there would be conflict. Venue choice would be part of strategy though.
Maybe I am just dense but why does Congress have to do this rather than the NCAA itself?
The NCAA could make rules for themselves but given how the member institutions all have self-serving interests and just generally how ineffectual the NCAA is, don't expect it to move fast. On the other hand, enough complaints about impropriety or inequality from a group of schools or the public and Congress has the ability and legal authority to act and tell the NCAA what they can and can't do.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clear explanation!
Because the NCAA has no oversight and no need to do things with any sense of logic.
Don't get me wrong, Congress can have those problems too, but the big thing is there is at least some ability to change people in Congress. There isn't that in the NCAA.
I think Guitarman's answer is good, but I'll echo/add on to
Everything below but also a federal law would mean common ground in every state instead of a patchwork system.
Well he can't do much worse
Great Podcast on the hire:
Oversimplified TL;DR:
At the gubernatorial level, politicians are pretty savvy. And he probably has "lobbied" Congress more than you think as governor.
This has a lot more to do with the realignment of the NCAA, with FBS breaking away into two or even 3 tiers of football.
NIL is a proper stepping stone in that process. My concern to this is that he's more supportive of administration than he is of players. NIL is supposed to be for the players. I hope that's not lost in the regulation they seek.
I mean, he was hired by the presidents, not players. Don't get your hopes up.