[PVTree]

The president signed an executive order limiting college athletes to play in college for 5 years and allowing them 1 transfer before graduating without having to sit out a year.

No doubt that lawsuits challenging this EO are forthcoming.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...e-transfer

[PVTree]

The president signed an executive order limiting college athletes to play in college for 5 years and allowing them 1 transfer before graduating without having to sit out a year.

No doubt that lawsuits challenging this EO are forthcoming.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...e-transfer

[martyup]

This appears to be a Presidential kick in the pants of the NCAA and the US Congress.

"The order directs the NCAA to create rules . . ."  
"The order also states that the NCAA should update its rules to . . ."

In response, NCAA president Charlie Baker said "We need congressional action to sort of seal the deal on a number of these things, which is good because we do, and getting a bipartisan agreement on a number of those issues would be a really big thing."

Several dozen college sports leaders joined Trump and other sports executives at the White House roundtable discussion in early March in search of a way for the federal government to restore some power to the NCAA and its schools.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...e-transfer

[martyup]

This appears to be a Presidential kick in the pants of the NCAA and the US Congress.

"The order directs the NCAA to create rules . . ."  
"The order also states that the NCAA should update its rules to . . ."

In response, NCAA president Charlie Baker said "We need congressional action to sort of seal the deal on a number of these things, which is good because we do, and getting a bipartisan agreement on a number of those issues would be a really big thing."

Several dozen college sports leaders joined Trump and other sports executives at the White House roundtable discussion in early March in search of a way for the federal government to restore some power to the NCAA and its schools.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...e-transfer

[triangle2]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

[triangle2]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

[Canalejas]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

Apparently neither John Donahue nor Condoleezza Rice, both of whom attended the roundtable discussion, mentioned his lack of authority on the matter.  Oops.

[Canalejas]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

Apparently neither John Donahue nor Condoleezza Rice, both of whom attended the roundtable discussion, mentioned his lack of authority on the matter.  Oops.

[burger]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

Apparently neither John Donahue nor Condoleezza Rice, both of whom attended the roundtable discussion, mentioned his lack of authority on the matter.  Oops.

Just because they didn't say anything doesn't make triangle wrong.

The Constitution is crystal clear on presidential authority.  The NCAA is not a government agency.  End of discussion. 

Also, Condi spent her entire career in government aiding and abetting war crimes.  Who cares what she thinks.

[burger]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

Apparently neither John Donahue nor Condoleezza Rice, both of whom attended the roundtable discussion, mentioned his lack of authority on the matter.  Oops.

Just because they didn't say anything doesn't make triangle wrong.

The Constitution is crystal clear on presidential authority.  The NCAA is not a government agency.  End of discussion. 

Also, Condi spent her entire career in government aiding and abetting war crimes.  Who cares what she thinks.

[Canalejas]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

Apparently neither John Donahue nor Condoleezza Rice, both of whom attended the roundtable discussion, mentioned his lack of authority on the matter.  Oops.

Just because they didn't say anything doesn't make triangle wrong.

The Constitution is crystal clear on presidential authority.  The NCAA is not a government agency.  End of discussion. 

Also, Condi spent her entire career in government aiding and abetting war crimes.  Who cares what she thinks.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with triangle in the least. Just noting that the two Stanford reps in the room didn't state the obvious. Or, if they did, it didn't make a difference.

[Canalejas]

Without getting into politics, there's no way Trymp has authority to order this. He might as well be saying: "I direct pharmacy benefit managers to stop gauging the general public" or "I order Delta Airlines to change economy class seat pitch."

Apparently neither John Donahue nor Condoleezza Rice, both of whom attended the roundtable discussion, mentioned his lack of authority on the matter.  Oops.

Just because they didn't say anything doesn't make triangle wrong.

The Constitution is crystal clear on presidential authority.  The NCAA is not a government agency.  End of discussion. 

Also, Condi spent her entire career in government aiding and abetting war crimes.  Who cares what she thinks.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with triangle in the least. Just noting that the two Stanford reps in the room didn't state the obvious. Or, if they did, it didn't make a difference.

[BostonCard]

This is going to be impossible to keep politics free, but it is off to an inauspicious start.  It is also an important topic of clear relevance to a Stanford sports board, so please whether you think this is the greatest administration since Lincoln's or the worst administration in history, please keep that to yourself and focus on the content of the executive order.

FWIW, I would love to see the executive order to codified by a congressional act to make it law, because I am inclined to agree that courts will probably find it unconstitutional.  But content wise, (5 year limit in college, one free transfer without penalty, support for non-revenue sports) I pretty much agree the EO is spot-on.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is going to be impossible to keep politics free, but it is off to an inauspicious start.  It is also an important topic of clear relevance to a Stanford sports board, so please whether you think this is the greatest administration since Lincoln's or the worst administration in history, please keep that to yourself and focus on the content of the executive order.

FWIW, I would love to see the executive order to codified by a congressional act to make it law, because I am inclined to agree that courts will probably find it unconstitutional.  But content wise, (5 year limit in college, one free transfer without penalty, support for non-revenue sports) I pretty much agree the EO is spot-on.

BC

[Goose]

This is going to be impossible to keep politics free, but it is off to an inauspicious start.  It is also an important topic of clear relevance to a Stanford sports board, so please whether you think this is the greatest administration since Lincoln's or the worst administration in history, please keep that to yourself and focus on the content of the executive order.

FWIW, I would love to see the executive order to codified by a congressional act to make it law, because I am inclined to agree that courts will probably find it unconstitutional.  But content wise, (5 year limit in college, one free transfer without penalty, support for non-revenue sports) I pretty much agree the EO is spot-on.

BC

Unfortunately the law made by congress would also be unconstitutional, albeit for different reasons. The president has no authority to "direct" the NCAA to do anything. The problem is that the intent of the executive order (or a law made by congress) is that it denies constitutionally protected freedoms from the the athletes. It would also put the NCAA back in the position of "restraining trade". Congress can exempt them from the anti-trust regulations, as they have MLB. However for college athletics the underlying constitutional questions would remain.

[Goose]

This is going to be impossible to keep politics free, but it is off to an inauspicious start.  It is also an important topic of clear relevance to a Stanford sports board, so please whether you think this is the greatest administration since Lincoln's or the worst administration in history, please keep that to yourself and focus on the content of the executive order.

FWIW, I would love to see the executive order to codified by a congressional act to make it law, because I am inclined to agree that courts will probably find it unconstitutional.  But content wise, (5 year limit in college, one free transfer without penalty, support for non-revenue sports) I pretty much agree the EO is spot-on.

BC

Unfortunately the law made by congress would also be unconstitutional, albeit for different reasons. The president has no authority to "direct" the NCAA to do anything. The problem is that the intent of the executive order (or a law made by congress) is that it denies constitutionally protected freedoms from the the athletes. It would also put the NCAA back in the position of "restraining trade". Congress can exempt them from the anti-trust regulations, as they have MLB. However for college athletics the underlying constitutional questions would remain.

[BostonCard]

Statement from the ACC.

https://x.com/theacc/status/2040221589619323116?s=46

And my reaction is to wonder who the design genius was that decided that white text on a nearly white background is good for legibility.

BC

[BostonCard]

Statement from the ACC.

https://x.com/theacc/status/2040221589619323116?s=46

And my reaction is to wonder who the design genius was that decided that white text on a nearly white background is good for legibility.

BC

[76lsjumb]

This is going to be impossible to keep politics free, but it is off to an inauspicious start.  It is also an important topic of clear relevance to a Stanford sports board, so please whether you think this is the greatest administration since Lincoln's or the worst administration in history, please keep that to yourself and focus on the content of the executive order.

FWIW, I would love to see the executive order to codified by a congressional act to make it law, because I am inclined to agree that courts will probably find it unconstitutional.  But content wise, (5 year limit in college, one free transfer without penalty, support for non-revenue sports) I pretty much agree the EO is spot-on.

BC

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

[76lsjumb]

This is going to be impossible to keep politics free, but it is off to an inauspicious start.  It is also an important topic of clear relevance to a Stanford sports board, so please whether you think this is the greatest administration since Lincoln's or the worst administration in history, please keep that to yourself and focus on the content of the executive order.

FWIW, I would love to see the executive order to codified by a congressional act to make it law, because I am inclined to agree that courts will probably find it unconstitutional.  But content wise, (5 year limit in college, one free transfer without penalty, support for non-revenue sports) I pretty much agree the EO is spot-on.

BC

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

[newguy]

popcorn anyone?

[newguy]

popcorn anyone?

[fullmetal]

I want the Ukraine war thread back :(

[fullmetal]

I want the Ukraine war thread back :(

[Mick]

I had gophers, lots of them. Tried everything, couldn't get rid of them. So I issued an executive order...no more gophers.

Now I've got skunks...

[Mick]

I had gophers, lots of them. Tried everything, couldn't get rid of them. So I issued an executive order...no more gophers.

Now I've got skunks...

[BostonCard]

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

My personal threshold for deleting posts is very high and my preference is to remind people of the rules and hope that calms things down.  In my mind, the danger is not so much that a political post exists per se (whether I agree with it or not); I think at this point we know that people have very strong feelings about politicians, current and former.  The danger to me is that a post will elicit a strong reaction and we get a back and forth that hijacks the discussion.  If it really bothers you or worry that you or someone else will not be able to leave the statement unchallenged, I can delete the post (or the offending statement), but honestly since this discussion has moved on, there’s probably a greater risk of calling attention by deleting it.

Note, if one of the other mods with a lower threshold to delete posts does so that’s fine too; we’re all just volunteers trying to do our best

BC

[BostonCard]

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

My personal threshold for deleting posts is very high and my preference is to remind people of the rules and hope that calms things down.  In my mind, the danger is not so much that a political post exists per se (whether I agree with it or not); I think at this point we know that people have very strong feelings about politicians, current and former.  The danger to me is that a post will elicit a strong reaction and we get a back and forth that hijacks the discussion.  If it really bothers you or worry that you or someone else will not be able to leave the statement unchallenged, I can delete the post (or the offending statement), but honestly since this discussion has moved on, there’s probably a greater risk of calling attention by deleting it.

Note, if one of the other mods with a lower threshold to delete posts does so that’s fine too; we’re all just volunteers trying to do our best

BC

[76lsjumb]

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

My personal threshold for deleting posts is very high and my preference is to remind people of the rules and hope that calms things down.  In my mind, the danger is not so much that a political post exists per se (whether I agree with it or not); I think at this point we know that people have very strong feelings about politicians, current and former.  The danger to me is that a post will elicit a strong reaction and we get a back and forth that hijacks the discussion.  If it really bothers you or worry that you or someone else will not be able to leave the statement unchallenged, I can delete the post (or the offending statement), but honestly since this discussion has moved on, there’s probably a greater risk of calling attention by deleting it.

Note, if one of the other mods with a lower threshold to delete posts does so that’s fine too; we’re all just volunteers trying to do our best

BC

Sounds reasonable to me (and my friend… :-)   )

[76lsjumb]

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

My personal threshold for deleting posts is very high and my preference is to remind people of the rules and hope that calms things down.  In my mind, the danger is not so much that a political post exists per se (whether I agree with it or not); I think at this point we know that people have very strong feelings about politicians, current and former.  The danger to me is that a post will elicit a strong reaction and we get a back and forth that hijacks the discussion.  If it really bothers you or worry that you or someone else will not be able to leave the statement unchallenged, I can delete the post (or the offending statement), but honestly since this discussion has moved on, there’s probably a greater risk of calling attention by deleting it.

Note, if one of the other mods with a lower threshold to delete posts does so that’s fine too; we’re all just volunteers trying to do our best

BC

Sounds reasonable to me (and my friend… :-)   )

[Spiny_Norman]

There actually is a bill before Congress that would do what the President wrote in the EO. The unexpected author of the bill? Senator Tommy Tuberville. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7150566...l-share-ta

[Spiny_Norman]

There actually is a bill before Congress that would do what the President wrote in the EO. The unexpected author of the bill? Senator Tommy Tuberville. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7150566...l-share-ta

[cardcrimson]

There actually is a bill before Congress that would do what the President wrote in the EO. The unexpected author of the bill? Senator Tommy Tuberville. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7150566...l-share-ta

Probably the only thing TT has done. And now he's running for Governor. . . .

Hope that sarcasm is not too political . . . . .

[cardcrimson]

There actually is a bill before Congress that would do what the President wrote in the EO. The unexpected author of the bill? Senator Tommy Tuberville. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7150566...l-share-ta

Probably the only thing TT has done. And now he's running for Governor. . . .

Hope that sarcasm is not too political . . . . .