Never fear, the politicians are here to fix NIL

[horshack.sixpack]

"Attorney General Lynn Fitch last week joined a lawsuit, along with 11 state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Transfer Eligibility Rule as an illegal restraint on college athletes’ ability to sell their image and likeness and control their education ... Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, the lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s requirement that college athletes who transfer a second time among Division I schools wait one year before competing in games..."

https://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2024/01/lynn-fitch-tries-to-wreck-college.html

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

"Worst words you can hear: 'We're from the Government and we're here to help.'"

- Ronald Reagan

 

[OG Goat Holder]

They are actually enabling more freedom, not restricting it - which is for what the government is usually blamed.

Nothing like college sports to make capitalists become socialists, and socialists become capitalists.

 

[57stratdawg]

I don’t think the NCAA will exist in 3 years.

 

[Coast_Dawg]

I don’t think the NCAA will exist in 3 years.

Their uselessness is being unveiled a little more each day.

 

[Darryl Steight]

They are actually enabling more freedom, not restricting it - which is for what the government is usually blamed.

Nothing like college sports to make capitalists become socialists, and socialists become capitalists.

I get what you're saying, but you do have to have some rules. You can't have complete anarchy when it comes to 'student' athletes who are already getting benefits from each school. It was rapidly becoming the wild wild west, so I can't really blame the NCAA for trying to set some parameters and calm things down.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I don’t think the NCAA will exist in 3 years.

Their uselessness is being unveiled a little more each day.

The NCAA essentially is the collective schools, so I am wondering what the incentive is for them (the schools) to keep continuing down this path, and basically stay quiet and allow things to simply cascade out of control. Why don't they fight? If the courts are going to get rid of them anyway, why just lay down? Once they are disbanded, the schools will just form a new governing body, whoever it may be. Then we are in the same exact situation.

This leads me to believe that the schools want this. They want to give the players as much freedom as possible, without giving up their TV money to 'employees', and having boosters foot the bill for players. In essence, college athletes will remain amateur.

I don't think we will ever get to the point where colleges directly pay players. There's a disconnect with that. It's not 'school' anymore at that point. And I also think they know they can't compete with the NFL, and their product will truly swirl the toilet at that point.

All that say - the NCAA will survive in some form or fashion.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I get what you're saying, but you do have to have some rules. You can't have complete anarchy when it comes to 'student' athletes who are already getting benefits from each school. It was rapidly becoming the wild wild west, so I can't really blame the NCAA for trying to set some parameters and calm things down.

Probably just going to boil down to academic rules. And then the laughable idea that you can't induce recruitments, which you'll have to be really stupid to get busted for (Florida and Florida State).

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I get what you're saying, but you do have to have some rules. You can't have complete anarchy when it comes to 'student' athletes who are already getting benefits from each school. It was rapidly becoming the wild wild west, so I can't really blame the NCAA for trying to set some parameters and calm things down.

Honestly we are just inches away from just needing to subject them to regular employment laws. I don't see how "lesser" sports, or even smaller schools, would survive that outcome.

 

[thatsbaseball]

 

[Coast_Dawg]

The NCAA essentially is the collective schools, so I am wondering what the incentive is for them (the schools) to keep continuing down this path, and basically stay quiet and allow things to simply cascade out of control. Why don't they fight? If the courts are going to get rid of them anyway, why just lay down? Once they are disbanded, the schools will just form a new governing body, whoever it may be. Then we are in the same exact situation.

This leads me to believe that the schools want this. They want to give the players as much freedom as possible, without giving up their TV money to 'employees', and having boosters foot the bill for players. In essence, college athletes will remain amateur.

I don't think we will ever get to the point where colleges directly pay players. There's a disconnect with that. It's not 'school' anymore at that point. And I also think they know they can't compete with the NFL, and their product will truly swirl the toilet at that point.

All that say - the NCAA will survive in some form or fashion.

The NCAA should exist but I feel the risk of lawsuit for any regulations against the students themselves is high with anything they try to enforce.

NCAA absolutely needs to exist to enforce and create rules if appropriate. Example: should schools be able to pay NIL to players for using them in graphics and such. Would seem that players could not allow the use of their image for graphics advertising the upcoming matchup in TV and such. I don’t know really. Just rambling.

It just seems like any governance of the players is almost completely dead other than maybe years of eligibility.

 

[mstateglfr]

"Worst words you can hear: 'We're from the Government and we're here to help.'"

- Ronald Reagan

That isnt the quote, but its close enough.

This was said almost 40 years ago and while it was just an off-hand comment at a press conference, that many think deserves to be engraved in stone. It seems to now be trotted out in response to most any time a proposed economic or social program is proposed, or even discussed, and actual merit/value of it applying to the issue is largely secondary.
Its quite fascinating, really. The fact that it was in use for decades and even used by Democrats in various ways makes it all actually sorta funny.

- He was commenting on the effectiveness of government's role in people's lives and even the most simple analysis shows it shouldnt be revered and referenced for decades.

• Who would be scared to hear that from the Fire Dept when their house is burning?
• Who would be scared to hear that from the Hwy Patrol and DOT when their car is in the ditch because of weather related road conditions
• Who would be scared to hear that when their home is destroyed by a tornado or hurricane?
• Who would be scared to hear that when an EMT comes to save their spouse during a heart attack?

Governments provide economic incentives for business to relocate. Governments provide affordable primary and secondary education. Governments help ensure products are safer to use than they were before, saving millions of lives and reducing countless injuries. Governments bailed out corporations who, thru unrestrained greed and risk, created a global financial crisis. Governments(federal and states) have militaries that keep the country safe, keep other countries safe, and provide humanitarian aid across the world in times of crisis.

Yes of course there are identified inefficiencies in government programs and processes. Yes of course there are identified examples where government policies or decisions didnt end well or didnt achieve the stated goal(s).
That does not mean the right approach is to deregulate, remove restrictions, remove education and energy responsibilities, reduce social safety nets, reduce worker protections, and tell everyone that they can in fact pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just try hard enough.





As it applies to this thread- the government is reducing a limitation on earning potential and increasing economic freedom. That doesnt seem like it should be something you should criticize using a misquote from Reagan. Just food for thought there, champ.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

That isnt the quote, but its close enough.

This was said almost 40 years ago and while it was just an off-hand comment at a press conference, that many think deserves to be engraved in stone. It seems to now be trotted out in response to most any time a proposed economic or social program is proposed, or even discussed, and actual merit/value of it applying to the issue is largely secondary.
Its quite fascinating, really. The fact that it was in use for decades and even used by Democrats in various ways makes it all actually sorta funny.

- He was commenting on the effectiveness of government's role in people's lives and even the most simple analysis shows it shouldnt be revered and referenced for decades.

• Who would be scared to hear that from the Fire Dept when their house is burning?
• Who would be scared to hear that from the Hwy Patrol and DOT when their car is in the ditch because of weather related road conditions
• Who would be scared to hear that when their home is destroyed by a tornado or hurricane?
• Who would be scared to hear that when an EMT comes to save their spouse during a heart attack?

Governments provide economic incentives for business to relocate. Governments provide affordable primary and secondary education. Governments help ensure products are safer to use than they were before, saving millions of lives and reducing countless injuries. Governments bailed out corporations who, thru unrestrained greed and risk, created a global financial crisis. Governments(federal and states) have militaries that keep the country safe, keep other countries safe, and provide humanitarian aid across the world in times of crisis.

Yes of course there are identified inefficiencies in government programs and processes. Yes of course there are identified examples where government policies or decisions didnt end well or didnt achieve the stated goal(s).
That does not mean the right approach is to deregulate, remove restrictions, remove education and energy responsibilities, reduce social safety nets, reduce worker protections, and tell everyone that they can in fact pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just try hard enough.





As it applies to this thread- the government is reducing a limitation on earning potential and increasing economic freedom. That doesnt seem like it should be something you should criticize using a misquote from Reagan. Just food for thought there, champ.

It is not the same thing.

 

[mstateglfr]

"Attorney General Lynn Fitch last week joined a lawsuit, along with 11 state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Transfer Eligibility Rule as an illegal restraint on college athletes’ ability to sell their image and likeness and control their education ... Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, the lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s requirement that college athletes who transfer a second time among Division I schools wait one year before competing in games..."

https://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2024/01/lynn-fitch-tries-to-wreck-college.html

This ends with a Collegiate Players Union and collective bargaining between the Union and the NCAA. The CPU and NCAA(schools) will agree to profit sharing, licensing, and everything else that the NFLPA basically negotiated with the NFL over for the last few decades.


I dont know how the 5 years to play 4 rule will ever be enforced moving forward, unless an CPU exists and it agrees to such a rule. Apply that to most every other restrictive rule that exists in college athletics right now.
The one good thing that could come out of this is a College Football League that is separate from conferences. Conferences could then go back to being regionally based because nobody actually gives a 17 if the UCLA water polo team is in the B10 or P12.

 

[mstateglfr]

It is not the same thing.

Fair enough, good talk.**

 

[horshack.sixpack]

This ends with a Collegiate Players Union and collective bargaining between the Union and the NCAA. The CPU and NCAA(schools) will agree to profit sharing, licensing, and everything else that the NFLPA basically negotiated with the NFL over for the last few decades.


I dont know how the 5 years to play 4 rule will ever be enforced moving forward, unless an CPU exists and it agrees to such a rule. Apply that to most every other restrictive rule that exists in college athletics right now.
The one good thing that could come out of this is a College Football League that is separate from conferences. Conferences could then go back to being regionally based because nobody actually gives a 17 if the UCLA water polo team is in the B10 or P12.

A viable NFL farm league would be a step in the right direction, perhaps. It's such a mess atm that I'm not sure I could come up with a coherent, agreeable and legal solution...

 

[HRMSU]

That isnt the quote, but its close enough.

This was said almost 40 years ago and while it was just an off-hand comment at a press conference, that many think deserves to be engraved in stone. It seems to now be trotted out in response to most any time a proposed economic or social program is proposed, or even discussed, and actual merit/value of it applying to the issue is largely secondary.
Its quite fascinating, really. The fact that it was in use for decades and even used by Democrats in various ways makes it all actually sorta funny.

- He was commenting on the effectiveness of government's role in people's lives and even the most simple analysis shows it shouldnt be revered and referenced for decades.

• Who would be scared to hear that from the Fire Dept when their house is burning?
• Who would be scared to hear that from the Hwy Patrol and DOT when their car is in the ditch because of weather related road conditions
• Who would be scared to hear that when their home is destroyed by a tornado or hurricane?
• Who would be scared to hear that when an EMT comes to save their spouse during a heart attack?

Governments provide economic incentives for business to relocate. Governments provide affordable primary and secondary education. Governments help ensure products are safer to use than they were before, saving millions of lives and reducing countless injuries. Governments bailed out corporations who, thru unrestrained greed and risk, created a global financial crisis. Governments(federal and states) have militaries that keep the country safe, keep other countries safe, and provide humanitarian aid across the world in times of crisis.

Yes of course there are identified inefficiencies in government programs and processes. Yes of course there are identified examples where government policies or decisions didnt end well or didnt achieve the stated goal(s).
That does not mean the right approach is to deregulate, remove restrictions, remove education and energy responsibilities, reduce social safety nets, reduce worker protections, and tell everyone that they can in fact pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just try hard enough.





As it applies to this thread- the government is reducing a limitation on earning potential and increasing economic freedom. That doesnt seem like it should be something you should criticize using a misquote from Reagan. Just food for thought there, champ.

Interesting that none of your examples are based on government administration. I think that's where it gets out of hand and earns the negative connotation. Interestingly enough increased administrative costs are one of the reasons for increased college tuition and hospital charges so maybe the gubmit is on to something ***

As far as lessening the restrictions it's focused on the student athlete not the school. They are essentially de facto employees or labor so it lines up how one should expect. In fact, it's very similar to the push to eliminate non-competes and non-solicitations.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Fair enough, good talk.**

I don't have time to get into long discussions, but getting help from the government is not the same thing as calling an EMT. The Government does some great needed things, but it often oversteps its bounds, and I think that was what he was talking about. I'm sure a lot of people think differently.

O.K.

 

[johnson86-1]

A viable NFL farm league would be a step in the right direction, perhaps. It's such a mess atm that I'm not sure I could come up with a coherent, agreeable and legal solution...

I don't think you can come up with a legal solution right now because the law simply wasn't designed to address this. I'm not sure how making them employees and encouraging them to certify a union would work with players having 4.3 years of eligibility. Politically, I don't think you can form an NCAA like organization and credibly commit to amateurism (even if you could get the member institutions to buy in) while coaches are making millions of dollars and the courts have already ruled the existing NCAA can't restrict salary on assistant coaches (I think it was the third basketball coach this fight was over?). Not sure why it's legal to limit the number of paid coaches but not limit the pay of some coach positions.

A "simple" law would be professional sports teams can't put minimum age limits on being drafted and then exempt schools from antitrust laws provided they have true amateur athletics with no compensation other than tuition, room, and board, and also require that no coach or administrator involved with amateur athletics be paid more than some benchmark (maybe the highest standard pay for a public high school teacher ?), and prohibit NIL and side gigs for coaches and players. Then make anybody making or arranging under the table payments to recruit (either for players or coaches) subject to antitrust violations (with a private right of action and whistleblower suits), because the entire exemption is based on it being true amateurism. Then schools could decide whether to join an organization complying with those restrictions or not. Presumably the vast majority of high schools would and it would be a question of whether schools like Bama and OSU would want to come compete on a level playing field in exchange for being able to dump excess money back into the school.

 

[WilCoDawg]

I don't have time to get into long discussions, but getting help from the government is not the same thing as calling an EMT. The Government does some great needed things, but it often oversteps its bounds, and I think that was what he was talking about. I'm sure a lot of people think differently.

O.K.

Easy now. He/she is trying to prove to everyone how non-liberal he/she is. Just let him/her roll with it.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

That isnt the quote, but its close enough.

This was said almost 40 years ago and while it was just an off-hand comment at a press conference, that many think deserves to be engraved in stone. It seems to now be trotted out in response to most any time a proposed economic or social program is proposed, or even discussed, and actual merit/value of it applying to the issue is largely secondary.
Its quite fascinating, really. The fact that it was in use for decades and even used by Democrats in various ways makes it all actually sorta funny.

- He was commenting on the effectiveness of government's role in people's lives and even the most simple analysis shows it shouldnt be revered and referenced for decades.

• Who would be scared to hear that from the Fire Dept when their house is burning?
• Who would be scared to hear that from the Hwy Patrol and DOT when their car is in the ditch because of weather related road conditions
• Who would be scared to hear that when their home is destroyed by a tornado or hurricane?
• Who would be scared to hear that when an EMT comes to save their spouse during a heart attack?

Governments provide economic incentives for business to relocate. Governments provide affordable primary and secondary education. Governments help ensure products are safer to use than they were before, saving millions of lives and reducing countless injuries. Governments bailed out corporations who, thru unrestrained greed and risk, created a global financial crisis. Governments(federal and states) have militaries that keep the country safe, keep other countries safe, and provide humanitarian aid across the world in times of crisis.

Yes of course there are identified inefficiencies in government programs and processes. Yes of course there are identified examples where government policies or decisions didnt end well or didnt achieve the stated goal(s).
That does not mean the right approach is to deregulate, remove restrictions, remove education and energy responsibilities, reduce social safety nets, reduce worker protections, and tell everyone that they can in fact pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just try hard enough.





As it applies to this thread- the government is reducing a limitation on earning potential and increasing economic freedom. That doesnt seem like it should be something you should criticize using a misquote from Reagan. Just food for thought there, champ.

Imagine that, a Ronald Reagan quote triggered glfr...color me shocked!!

Government intervention in college athletics (no matter what they're trying to "fix") will only end badly!

Also, the financial crisis was ultimately started by the GOVERNMENT forcing lending institutions to write mortgages to people that the banks KNEW couldn't pay them off. Once the borrowers inevitably defaulted on the loans and the banks started losing money, the banks started doing shady schite that made the problem worse, but the ultimate root cause was the Government deciding that everyone deserves to own a home even if they can't afford it.

Congrats on taking the thread off-topic and turning it political.

 

[LordMcBuckethead]

"Worst words you can hear: 'We're from the Government and we're here to help.'"

- Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan is a piece of crap. That one statement, along with his welfare queen BS (which was even debunked at the time he said it) is what leads people to believe the government is useless for which they are not. His fiscal policies sucked too, mostly because Republican's never adjust those policies for the time. Always reaching back for Golden Calf God Reagan's wisdom instead of actually putting together policies built for today, collaborating with fellows across the aisle and compromising effectively. The government tackles things that private industries and individual states cannot. People complain about social security, medicaid, medicare, etc, but they keep countless millions out of extreme poverty every single day, week, month, year since it was enacted. I know the older members of my family rely on it, their parents did too.

Here is the thing. Athletes have the same exact rights every other student in this country has. If they allow students to transfer schools, then athletes should have the ability to transfer schools. They are not slaves to one school. They are not owned by that school. They are a student that plays football. The attorney general's job is to protect the student athletes from being taken advantage of unduly. College sports are changing and granted no one likes it. But it is moving to a more equitable situation for the ones that put themselves on the line for our entertainment and school pride, the players. There should be no restrictions what-so-ever on what students can do during their time in college. I would even argue, a student wants to go to school for 10 years, they should get to play for 10 years if they want.

 

[LordMcBuckethead]

I don’t think the NCAA will exist in 3 years.

Yeah, they kept the cash too long. It will be there downfall.

 

[LordMcBuckethead]

They are actually enabling more freedom, not restricting it - which is for what the government is usually blamed.

Nothing like college sports to make capitalists become socialists, and socialists become capitalists.

Well said.

 

[mstateglfr]

Imagine that, a Ronald Reagan quote triggered glfr...color me shocked!!

Government intervention in college athletics (no matter what they're trying to "fix") will only end badly!

Also, the financial crisis was ultimately started by the GOVERNMENT forcing lending institutions to write mortgages to people that the banks KNEW couldn't pay them off. Once the borrowers inevitably defaulted on the loans and the banks started losing money, the banks started doing shady schite that made the problem worse, but the ultimate root cause was the Government deciding that everyone deserves to own a home even if they can't afford it.

Congrats on taking the thread off-topic and turning it political.

I turned it political? Who responded with a Reagan quote about the government to a thread about the government fixing college NIL issues? But I turned it political...ok.

The '08 financial crisis was caused because banks lent too much money to too many risky borrowers for too many homes that were overvalued/misvalued. Banks were willing to take this risk because they broke loans up and sold them which pushed risk to investors. Other issues which contributed were relatively low interest rates and a lack of effective regulation. Banks largely did not perceive much of what they were loaning as risky because mortgage backed securities were rated well and default was low.
Are you claiming the CRA caused the 2008 global financial crisis?

As for your claim that government intervention in college athletics will only end badly- its off the tracks already and did so because of greed and profits- greed and profits from conferences and media outlets, and now greed and profits from student athletes to ensure they get some of the greed and profits that were flowing so freely. Its ending badly without government intervention.

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

 

[Boom Boom]

Imagine that, a Ronald Reagan quote triggered glfr...color me shocked!!

Government intervention in college athletics (no matter what they're trying to "fix") will only end badly!

Also, the financial crisis was ultimately started by the GOVERNMENT forcing lending institutions to write mortgages to people that the banks KNEW couldn't pay them off. Once the borrowers inevitably defaulted on the loans and the banks started losing money, the banks started doing shady schite that made the problem worse, but the ultimate root cause was the Government deciding that everyone deserves to own a home even if they can't afford it.

Congrats on taking the thread off-topic and turning it political.

We have credit scores so that the banks don't have to lend a dime to anyone that they know won't pay it off. Sublrime loans have the name "subprime" because they went to people with low credit scores, with higher rates and terms attached to keep them profitable. Market players just misjudged the risk. As they historically do. Capitalism has its uses and its flaws, too bad Ronnie blinded himself to the latter because of his emotions towards communism.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

I turned it political? Who responded with a Reagan quote about the government to a thread about the government fixing college NIL issues? But I turned it political...ok.

The '08 financial crisis was caused because banks lent too much money to too many risky borrowers for too many homes that were overvalued/misvalued. Banks were willing to take this risk because they broke loans up and sold them which pushed risk to investors. Other issues which contributed were relatively low interest rates and a lack of effective regulation. Banks largely did not perceive much of what they were loaning as risky because mortgage backed securities were rated well and default was low.
Are you claiming the CRA caused the 2008 global financial crisis?

As for your claim that government intervention in college athletics will only end badly- its off the tracks already and did so because of greed and profits- greed and profits from conferences and media outlets, and now greed and profits from student athletes to ensure they get some of the greed and profits that were flowing so freely. Its ending badly without government intervention.

No, I’m saying that the FHA combined with Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac heavily contributed to the mortgage crisis of the early 2000’s by federally insuring high risk loans to low income buyers. During the Clinton administration, the FHA lowered the standards for obtaining mortgages and forced banks to write mortgages to low income buyers who previously would not qualify:

Clinton Housing Policy Wrecked Economy, Not 1%

Election '16: With typical gall, Hillary Clinton in her campaign launch lit into "those at the top" for "stacking" the deck against middle-class families when in fact they are buried... Read More

www.investors.com

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

We have credit scores so that the banks don't have to lend a dime to anyone that they know won't pay it off. Sublrime loans have the name "subprime" because they went to people with low credit scores, with higher rates and terms attached to keep them profitable. Market players just misjudged the risk. As they historically do. Capitalism has its uses and its flaws, too bad Ronnie blinded himself to the latter because of his emotions towards communism.

Read up on Clinton’s executive orders mandating banks to write risky loans to unqualified buyers then federally insuring them through Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac then get back to me about “credit scores”…

 

[Doghaus]

Their uselessness is being unveiled a little more each day.

And if so we will be on the outside looking in

 

[Boom Boom]

No, I’m saying that the FHA combined with Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac heavily contributed to the mortgage crisis of the early 2000’s by federally insuring high risk loans to low income buyers. During the Clinton administration, the FHA lowered the standards for obtaining mortgages and forced banks to write mortgages to low income buyers who previously would not qualify:

Clinton Housing Policy Wrecked Economy, Not 1%

Election '16: With typical gall, Hillary Clinton in her campaign launch lit into "those at the top" for "stacking" the deck against middle-class families when in fact they are buried... Read More

www.investors.com

The crisis happened in 06-07. There was no crisis in the early 2000s. By the time the crisis happened, Fannie and Freddie were bit players. You are also completely ignoring that the banks were bending over backwards to loan to anyone with a pulse. How do you conclude incentives to fairly lend in poor areas could possibly be involved? What's the theory here, that banks WANTED to lend to any white person with a pulse, but would only lend to black people with middling credit scores because of the CRA?

 

[mstateglfr]

No, I’m saying that the FHA combined with Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac heavily contributed to the mortgage crisis of the early 2000’s by federally insuring high risk loans to low income buyers. During the Clinton administration, the FHA lowered the standards for obtaining mortgages and forced banks to write mortgages to low income buyers who previously would not qualify:

Clinton Housing Policy Wrecked Economy, Not 1%

Election '16: With typical gall, Hillary Clinton in her campaign launch lit into "those at the top" for "stacking" the deck against middle-class families when in fact they are buried... Read More

www.investors.com

Ohshit that was a bonkers crazy article.
- first, thats an op-ed and not actually a news article or report. It's just a bunch of opinion.
- second, I asked if you are claiming CRA caused the financial crisis, you said no you aren't claiming that, then you linked an op-ed that directly mentions and blames revamped CRA regulations. Haha, wut?
- third, that article brought ACORN into this! Haha, wow that's a boogeyman I haven't heard mentioned in years. Oh wow. And it even claims the Clintons were cozy with ACORN and some crowdfunded 'doc' would finally blow open the doors and expose the nefarious relationship.


17sake- did you actually read your link before posting it as 'evidence'?
Reality is that banks were stumbling over each other trying to lend to anyone with a pulse. Banks were willingly balancing on the edge of the cliff and reaching over to grab any money they could. But you blame Clinton for the banks falling over that cliff?
Dude, there were countless examples of people being approved for mortgages way beyond what they could ever repay, countless examples of people being approved for mortgages even though their applications weren't fully filled or verified, and countless examples of people not even knowing who actually owned their mortgage because banks broke down the mortgages into nearly impossible to verify and trace packages for investment.
That is all the banks CHOOSING to do those things. CHOOSING.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

Ohshit that was a bonkers crazy article.
- first, thats an op-ed and not actually a news article or report. It's just a bunch of opinion.
- second, I asked if you are claiming CRA caused the financial crisis, you said no you aren't claiming that, then you linked an op-ed that directly mentions and blames revamped CRA regulations. Haha, wut?
- third, that article brought ACORN into this! Haha, wow that's a boogeyman I haven't heard mentioned in years. Oh wow. And it even claims the Clintons were cozy with ACORN and some crowdfunded 'doc' would finally blow open the doors and expose the nefarious relationship.


17sake- did you actually read your link before posting it as 'evidence'?
Reality is that banks were stumbling over each other trying to lend to anyone with a pulse. Banks were willingly balancing on the edge of the cliff and reaching over to grab any money they could. But you blame Clinton for the banks falling over that cliff?
Dude, there were countless examples of people being approved for mortgages way beyond what they could ever repay, countless examples of people being approved for mortgages even though their applications weren't fully filled or verified, and countless examples of people not even knowing who actually owned their mortgage because banks broke down the mortgages into nearly impossible to verify and trace packages for investment.
That is all the banks CHOOSING to do those things. CHOOSING.

Reading comprehension would do you a lot of good, but of course, it’s easier for you to spout nonsense.

Obviously, the CRA (passed in 1977) isn’t directly responsible for the housing crisis of the early 2000‘s, but Clinton’s ridiculous interpretation, expansion, and enforcement of it was. I posted an article outlining Clinton’s executive orders that grossly expanded CRA beyond its intended purpose and you respond with “countless examples” but don’t actually give any.

Great discussion…

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

The crisis happened in 06-07. There was no crisis in the early 2000s. By the time the crisis happened, Fannie and Freddie were bit players. You are also completely ignoring that the banks were bending over backwards to loan to anyone with a pulse. How do you conclude incentives to fairly lend in poor areas could possibly be involved? What's the theory here, that banks WANTED to lend to any white person with a pulse, but would only lend to black people with middling credit scores because of the CRA?

I guess you didn’t read the article I posted. Banks were FORCED to write mortgages to low income borrowers as a result of Clinton’s executive orders expanding CRA way beyond its original intended purpose.

BTW…why are you bringing skin color into the discussion???

 

[ZombieKissinger]

Has anyone had a Crunchwrap supreme in a while? Man those are good

 

[Boom Boom]

I guess you didn’t read the article I posted. Banks were FORCED to write mortgages to low income borrowers as a result of Clinton’s executive orders expanding CRA way beyond its original intended purpose.

BTW…why are you bringing skin color into the discussion???

Your link is from a propaganda rag, and is completely wrong.

https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown11.pdf

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Interesting that none of your examples are based on government administration. I think that's where it gets out of hand and earns the negative connotation. Interestingly enough increased administrative costs are one of the reasons for increased college tuition and hospital charges so maybe the gubmit is on to something ***

As far as lessening the restrictions it's focused on the student athlete not the school. They are essentially de facto employees or labor so it lines up how one should expect. In fact, it's very similar to the push to eliminate non-competes and non-solicitations.

Why are all ya'll always hating on administration? Seems like every problem in ya'll lives' solution is to get rid of administration. Somebody has to run stuff, and make sure things get done, and done the correct way.

I guess you didn’t read the article I posted. Banks were FORCED to write mortgages to low income borrowers as a result of Clinton’s executive orders expanding CRA way beyond its original intended purpose.

BTW…why are you bringing skin color into the discussion???

That's not 'government'. That's a legislator. Your Ranking County Republican anger is misplaced.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I don't think you can come up with a legal solution right now because the law simply wasn't designed to address this. I'm not sure how making them employees and encouraging them to certify a union would work with players having 4.3 years of eligibility. Politically, I don't think you can form an NCAA like organization and credibly commit to amateurism (even if you could get the member institutions to buy in) while coaches are making millions of dollars and the courts have already ruled the existing NCAA can't restrict salary on assistant coaches (I think it was the third basketball coach this fight was over?). Not sure why it's legal to limit the number of paid coaches but not limit the pay of some coach positions.

A "simple" law would be professional sports teams can't put minimum age limits on being drafted and then exempt schools from antitrust laws provided they have true amateur athletics with no compensation other than tuition, room, and board, and also require that no coach or administrator involved with amateur athletics be paid more than some benchmark (maybe the highest standard pay for a public high school teacher ?), and prohibit NIL and side gigs for coaches and players. Then make anybody making or arranging under the table payments to recruit (either for players or coaches) subject to antitrust violations (with a private right of action and whistleblower suits), because the entire exemption is based on it being true amateurism. Then schools could decide whether to join an organization complying with those restrictions or not. Presumably the vast majority of high schools would and it would be a question of whether schools like Bama and OSU would want to come compete on a level playing field in exchange for being able to dump excess money back into the school.

Agree with all of this. I've been an advocate of lowering the draft age for a while, and the NFL messed up by not doing that. Not messed up in the sense that they will fold, but just that they could have helped avoid this long ago. Now they are about to have to compete with this new college league, and they'll ultimately win, but it'll be a headache.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

Why are all ya'll always hating on administration? Seems like every problem in ya'll lives' solution is to get rid of administration. Somebody has to run stuff, and make sure things get done, and done the correct way.


That's not 'government'. That's a legislator. Your Ranking County Republican anger is misplaced.

FHA isn't a governmental agency? Interesting...

 

[HRMSU]

Why are all ya'll always hating on administration? Seems like every problem in ya'll lives' solution is to get rid of administration. Somebody has to run stuff, and make sure things get done, and done the correct way.

LMAO....as I think about the Post Office, DMV, IRS and multiple other alphabet soup administrations. Talking about running stuff, getting s done, and doing it the correct way.