re: Class of 2026 Football Recruiting

quote:

---

But the clearinghouse would and that's why it'll crumble at the first lawsuit. When a booster wants to pay a player 500,000 dollars to show up to a ribbon cutting at one of his businesses and the clearinghouse rejects it, the lawsuit will be filed the next day. And the player will win.

---

no, the booster can still pay him that, the player just loses eligibility. The antitrust stuff where the NCAA and schools were profiting but not letting the players do so had been resolved, there will be profit sharing, and there will be compliant nil deals allowed. I don't see why people didn't understand this. The player doesn't have a constitutional right to eligibility, the organization that's coordinating athletic competition/fairness can set the terms of eligibility still, and if the player chooses to lose their eligibility with a non compliant deal that's on them. If their name, image, and likeness is worth $500k to a booster still without them playing, then great they get the $500k. Nobody is stopping them from making that money

quote:

---

no, the booster can still pay him that, the player just loses eligibility.

---

I'm saying that the basis for taking away the players eligibility is what is never going to hold up ie the clearinghouse determining what is "fair market value" for a particular players NIL deals. The first player with a half decent lawyer is going to sue and argue that the fact that the NIL deal was offered in the 1st place is proof that it was indeed the player's market value and the clearinghouse is full of shite for rejecting it.

quote:

---

From what I understand the rule is everything before August 1 promised nil deals are going to be allowed

---

Players will still be able to receive NIL deals and endorsements outside of the profit sharing. The only change is everyone now will get paid via profit sharing so share the wealth clause basically and NIL deals have to be legit. No more a booster giving a kid a Lamborghini for showing to sign a few autographs.

It is supposed to show transparency. The problem though is the new clearing house for NIL really has no power to enforce anything. If you read most articles that have interviewed, they say they have no power to penalize nor to force a kid to submit their NIL deal. So, we will see how that part plays out.

quote:

---

But the clearinghouse would and that's why it'll crumble at the first lawsuit. When a booster wants to pay a player 500,000 dollars to show up to a ribbon cutting at one of his businesses and the clearinghouse rejects it, the lawsuit will be filed the next day. And the player will win.

---

Is it a rejection as in “no you can’t pay them that,” or is it a rejection as in “this is going to count towards the $20.5mm cap”

I realize they can’t stop ppl from getting paid for whatever they agree to do, but I absolutely think it’s within their ability to say “we don’t agree with the valuation of these services, declare that this is associated with a pay for play, and are counting this against your cap.”

That’s the only way this really works without going the employee route imo, and also is the best chance at “leveling the playing field”

quote:

---

and you didn't think a player making a pay for play nil deal with a booster as determined by the designated third party (designated by the court) would be cause to remove eligibility from a player?

---

I may need clarification here on what you are saying.

They can still receive any NIL package if determined by the Clearing House meets the market value of said player. The only thing that has changed are the so-called fake deals. A lawyer/sports agent yesterday did an interview and like many others he is telling players do not disclose because there is nothing they can do. They can approve/deny all they want but cannot force a player to disclose the information.

Not sure about where the info you are getting about the court designating a third party. You may be correct and please provide a link.

All I have seen is the NCAA no longer wants to get sued or go to court. So, the CSC was created to separate NIL from the NCAA. I have not seen anywhere that was a requirement of the court and even if so, the CSC can only punish the school for violations of NIL not a player.

The CSC is trying to create a structure that all schools adhere to hopefully have a viable future for the sport but like the NCAA they have limited power on any player directly in regard to NIL.

quote:

---

Nobody wants to hear it but the only way the stupid shite and lawsuits stop is with labor organization of the athletes and collective bargaining agreements between the players union and schools.

---

In theory. In practice I don't see how it works. Who are the union reps? Does each D1 school get a rep? Each sport? Each team at each school? And how do you reconcile the vastly different interests of the football team and the women's tennis team? The fact is that the overwhelming majority of D1 athletes are making less than $10k a year in NIL and aren't going to be motivated to go on strike to help a few football and men's basketball players make $4 million instead of $3 million.

I am afraid you are right. Collective bargaining will hold up in court. All this other stuff is not going to work unless Congress passes some kind of law, and that just ain’t going to happen.

quote:

---

They can still receive any NIL package if determined by the Clearing House meets the market value of said player. The only thing that has changed are the so-called fake deals. A lawyer/sports agent yesterday did an interview and like many others he is telling players do not disclose because there is nothing they can do. They can approve/deny all they want but cannot force a player to disclose the information.

---

Then we need to establish that eligibility is depending upon transparency with the clearing house, and non compliance can result in loss of eligibility each year you don’t comply

Why is this not a reasonable req?

quote:

---

Then we need to establish that eligibility is depending upon transparency with the clearing house, and non compliance can result in loss of eligibility each year you don’t comply

Why is this not a reasonable req?

---

I am not disagreeing at all. The issue though is the NCAA has basically wiped their hands of the NIL as they have learned they have no leverage in the courts which is where it continues to head. The CSC goal is to unite the conferences to sign a binding agreement that all schools must adhere to or lack of transparency will bring down punishment on the school.

Basically, all that happened is the CSC hopes having each school police their athletes and the NIL deals will at least prevent rogue program boosters. It still gives no power to the anyone to dictate any power of the players. The players still hold all the leverage.

quote:

---

The CSC goal is to unite the conferences to sign a binding agreement that all schools must adhere to or lack of transparency will bring down punishment on the school

---

See, to me this sounds too much like collusion for my liking. If the schools are colluding to cap earning potential then I don’t think that stands up as well as the NCAA being involved and saying “you have NiL earning capabilities up to a reasonable earning standard that doesn’t bleed into pay for play. Pay for play is strictly through revenue sharing and any additional pay for play through someone affiliated with a university makes you ineligible”

Easy peasy