[QUOTE=IAmNotSpartacus]
I think you’ve shown Really Not All That Bright was entirely correct.
None of what you mention is in the 5th amendment. It’s evident that outside context is being applied, per your numerous and lengthy cites.
[/QUOTE]
Two cites isn’t exactly numerous, fifteen lines isn’t terribly lengthy, the part where I quoted the Fifth Amendment comes very directly from the Fifth Amendment, and a Supreme Court opinion is not “outside context” in terms of itself, particularly when it says it’s relying on the plain text of the Amendment.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Okay, you lost me there. Are you saying that if the NCAA negotiated TV packages, then it would be a trust, but if another organization, say, The Big East Conference negotiated a TV package, then it would NOT be a trust?
What is the difference?
And also, how is the local little league not subject to federal anti-trust regulations? They have a set number of teams, rules for selecting players, playing games, they make money at the gate, etc. Isn’t that just MLB only on a vastly smaller scale?
[/QUOTE]
There are lots of things which are effectively cartels and/or trusts, yet attract no judicial or legislative attention.
More importantly, any member school can opt out of its conference whenever it likes. Some do (although usually just to join another one). You can’t just opt out of the NCAA, though. Hence, the NCAA = subject to antitrust attention, conferences = not subject.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
This is the real issue, and is part of why I have so much contempt for Americans qua political creatures. For example, Imad Mughniyah, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and their allies, got whacked today. This is a BIG FUCKING DEAL. But what’s CNN’s top story? Roger Clemens. Mughniyeh is a sideline. The press gives Americans what they want, and what they want is bread and circus.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on this issue. It’s pathetic what passes for news here. Really, news now is little more than entertainment. For a bigger laugh, check out our ‘reality’ TV shows.
However, what is a “BIG FUCKING DEAL” or not is in the mind of the receiver, no?
I have nothing to add but I did find it funny that just last night I got into a major tirade about this very topic… Why on earth are our tax dollars going to all these hearings about a sports game? It was beyond comprehension (could’ve been the lack of sobriety though).
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
However, what is a “BIG FUCKING DEAL” or not is in the mind of the receiver, no?
[/QUOTE]
No. Some things are just more important or significant than others. Darfur is more important than Nicole Richie’s baby, even if more Americans are interested in the latter than the former.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
Not really. Ratings skyrocket when Barry Bonds and other hormone pumped meat hammers start slamming balls into outer space. They do have an interest in not getting caught, though.
[/QUOTE]
This is, really, not at all true.
Baseball revenues have been moving upwards since the 1970s, and really started accelerating in the lkate 1980s, which is why ticket prices and salaries have been climbing so rapidly at the same time. That’s also why in the last 15-20 years baseball teams have been in such a rush to get into new, luxurious stadia; they pay off, and they pay off big time. The only serious hiccups in this trend were the 1981 strike, which cut out a third of the season, and the 1994 strike, which set baseball back several years in revenue… but it started climbing immediately from the lower level of 1995.
The surge in home runs didn’t start happening until the mid 1990s, at which point baseball revenues had been expanding for two decades.
Consumer spending on spectator sports as a whole has been rising for the last 30 years or so, which is why it costs so much money to see a big ticket NCAA football game even though the players aren’t paid anything. Now, why that is is a question that’s not as easy to answer as you might think; Baseball Prospectus theorized that it’s due to higher income brackets having more income and lower taxes, freeing up cash for luxury suits and season tickets. I think it might also have something to do with the fact that baseball (and all sports) are now much more accessible to the fan, presented 24/7 on cable sports channels and via the Internet. When I was a kid, if I wanted to see baseball highlights I had to stay up to 11 to see Global’s rundown of the scores, and getting good information was hard. Now I have anything I want whenever I want it. A sport that’s easier to follow may attract more interest and more money. But either way, it’s unquestionably true that
The spike in revenue began BEFORE the home run explosion, and
Much of the revenue increase is directly tied to the construction of new, modern stadia, which are unquestionably huge moneymakers for the teams (though probably not of much economic benefit to the community as a whole) irrespective of the whether the team had Barry Bonds or not.
A complete waste of time and money. The USA is beset with so many problems-and these idiots are questioning drug-addled professional athletes. Baseball is a business, and its players are entertainers. Whether they take drugs or not is none of Congress’s business.
Next we have imbecile Sen. Spector-he wants to investigate the NE patriots taping the opposing team’s play signals.
The worst thing is that trees have to die, to print this crap in the Congressional Register!
But football isn’t a federally-protected monopoly. Baseball is. It therefore behooves the government to subject baseball to scrutiny but not necessarily football or hockey or basketball.