Started By
Message
re: Class of 2026 Football Recruiting
Posted on 7/9/25 at 2:47 pm to TideWarrior
Posted on 7/9/25 at 2:47 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
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 third party I was referring to is The CSC, and that was created by the district Court ruling as part of the settlement. Third party in that they are not the NCAA and they are not the player/booster making the pay for play deal.
What I've been reading says if the player chooses to go with a deal that falls outside the parameters of approved deals they will have to go through an enforcement process that could impact their eligibility
sports illustrated
There CSC is handling money related stuff and according to this anyway will have the ability to regulate players not just the schools
quote:
If a deal is denied within NIL Go, players can either submit a revised deal that falls within certain parameters or they could cancel it altogether. If they still want to move forward with things, there remain two further options: enter an arbitration process which could still approve the deal, or take the money and face the enforcement process.
Should they wind up going through door No. 4, it’s possible the CSC staff could eventually strip them of part of their eligibility to play.
So I think what you are saying about the CSC being able to only punish schools is not correct, and I also didn't think it's correct that this only applies to schools that have signed on to this
quote:
Soon, it won’t be NCAA enforcement veterans arguing their case against schools before a cadre of faculty athletic reps, lawyers and athletic directors around a set of U-shaped tables. Rather, there will be no hearing at all upon reaching the denouement of a process that is typically measured in years and not months. Instead, perhaps as early as this July, a written notice will simply be sent out to those who have been found to breach some of the new regulations in place. It will bear the logo of the newly formed College Sports Commission overseeing the new process and will rather succinctly inform them of their fate (in an ideal world) just a few weeks after an infraction takes place.
quote:
The new CSC was only recently incorporated in April and is tasked with oversight, implementation and overall enforcement of the settlement over the course of the next decade. CEO Bryan Seeley, who comes over from Major League Baseball and will assume commissioner-like powers to dole out future punishments, was officially named to his position just two hours after Judge Wilken issued her final approval of the case but technically doesn’t have a set start date prior to July 1 despite inheriting all of the problems at hand right away
This post was edited on 7/9/25 at 2:56 pm
1
Posted on 7/9/25 at 3:14 pm to TideSaint
If Auburn is correct that almost all NIL is recruiting-related and should count toward the cap, why does the House v. NCAA settlement bother making a distinction for third-party, cap-exempt deals at all?
Do they really think the clearinghouse is going to be able to competently wield the sword dividing whether third party deals are associated with recruitment to the university?
My understanding is that schools can literally act as marketing agents for the athletes and as long as the funds are paid by a third-party, it isn't subject to the cap. So, you have a permitted cap-exempt scenario like this, but Auburn still says "nope" its related to recruitment and will be subject to the cap and the clearinghouse will see it that way.
I just think Auburn cooked themselves with their interpretation.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 3:34 pm to UBamaJelly
According to Jimmy Stein, the Big 12 as a whole is following what AU believes, and also believes August 1st will be significant, but he also doesn't believe it is true.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 4:29 pm to phaz
Sounds like Auburn should join the Big 12 and form the SPED conference
Posted on 7/9/25 at 4:36 pm to narddogg81
Also in that article is said this.
There are many reports out there already with law experts saying the CSC and the new clearing house have no teeth and sports agents/lawyers are telling their clients not to disclose their NIL deals.
In the end as that article pointed out 90% of the deals would have been approved. The schools are signing an agreement to commit to transparency. With the exception of maybe a few the Big 4 schools will get all their deals completed with no issues.
quote:
Eligibility could be at stake for some athletes
There are many reports out there already with law experts saying the CSC and the new clearing house have no teeth and sports agents/lawyers are telling their clients not to disclose their NIL deals.
In the end as that article pointed out 90% of the deals would have been approved. The schools are signing an agreement to commit to transparency. With the exception of maybe a few the Big 4 schools will get all their deals completed with no issues.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 4:39 pm to phaz
The crazy thing about all this is IF Auburn were right about this, it’d actually be better for Alabama.
All that does is introduce a de facto salary cap into college football and so then you’ve got players making the same money everywhere and just picking schools where they can win and go get drafted high…ya know…like they did the last couple decades where we had the number 1 class more often than not.
All that does is introduce a de facto salary cap into college football and so then you’ve got players making the same money everywhere and just picking schools where they can win and go get drafted high…ya know…like they did the last couple decades where we had the number 1 class more often than not.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 4:39 pm to UBamaJelly
quote:
If Auburn is correct that almost all NIL is recruiting-related and should count toward the cap, why does the House v. NCAA settlement bother making a distinction for third-party, cap-exempt deals at all?
That are not correct about NIL deals outside of the school. Any deals or endorsements that are market value have no effect on the cap as well as any inhouse if valued correctly can be provided over the cap.
quote:
Take a player like Cooper Flagg at Duke. His brand value would be considered high for Duke, which could allow the school to pay him for an endorsement without pulling from their revenue sharing money.
LINK
Posted on 7/9/25 at 4:42 pm to Sandkhan
quote:
The crazy thing about all this is IF Auburn were right about this
Even if the 8/1 is some magical date any deal made prior to July 1 my understanding is grandfathered in. Why it is being reported that there was a 854% increase in NIL deals the months leading up to July 1.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 4:45 pm to TideWarrior
quote:it said 90% of deals with companies would have been approved. 70 % of deals with collective would have been rejected. Those are the pay for play deals. I guess we will find out. Just cause scumbag sports lawyers are telling clients not to comply, that doesn't mean much. This is a totally different scenario than when the NCAA was losing case after case due to anti trust stuff. This commission is born out of a court mandated settlement, it has the backing of the judicial system until such time that any litigation challenging it makes it to a higher court. This has a legal basis for enforcement, and legal cover that goes with it. Challenges to it will be facing a much steeper slope than just attacking the NCAA for making millions and not letting the athletes profit
the end as that article pointed out 90% of the deals would have been approved
This post was edited on 7/9/25 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 7/9/25 at 5:11 pm to narddogg81
quote:
This commission is born out of a court mandated settlement,
Maybe I read it wrong as I did not read it was mandated just approved when the idea was presented. Either way it does not matter because all those involved will find a way to make it work out. Yes the big issue is booster involvement but legit endorsements where the real money is coming from will not be stopped.
In regard to the dates of everything July 1 is when NIL deals were required to start being submitted. August 1 is the first time a school can officially offer a contract to sign for revenue sharing. So far over 1200 NIL deal have been submitted and over a third reviewed have been approved. Only 80 have been denied but will be resubmitted.
quote:
Of the more than 1,200 deals submitted to the clearinghouse so far, about one-third have been approved — many of them with little to no issue, those with knowledge tell Yahoo Sports. About 80 have been denied and are likely, if they haven’t already, to be resubmitted (deals can be resubmitted once).
AU fans seem to be confused on all this. What AU and the B12 are upset about are teams front loaded their roster spending before July 1. They believe that players are getting lied to as to commit and once the actual contracts are provided on 8/1 the amount will be less. Basically, it shows the poors are unhappy.
quote:
Front-loading refers to the literal loading upfront of player contracts as school collectives paid out all or a majority of deals before the settlement’s implementation date of July 1. Deals paid out on July 1 and after are subject to the new enforcement system specifically created to prohibit booster and collective compensation.
AU Cohen and B12 believe schools will get in trouble for this but doubt that will happen.
quote:
They are far from alone in front-loading. Booster collective spending on athletes in June was more than 800% higher than last June, according to Opendorse, an NIL platform used by dozens of collectives. According to another NIL platform, Teamworks, collectives distributed a whopping $71 million to athletes in June using their system.
These payouts took place before the 7/1 start and the new CSC or NIL Clearing House have no authority over those. What AU is banking on is the Clearing House not approving the deals and the players will to them. But my understanding is that those prior to 7/1 cannot be reviewed.
And for the record the new CSC does not yet have the ability to enforce anything according to this.
quote:
as college leaders negotiate with House plaintiff lawyers over a final set of cap-circumvention rules and penalties. Plaintiff lawyers, most notably co-lead attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, hold authority and approval rights to a variety of settlement enforcement concepts, including rules and penalties that, in the end, are likely to determine final decisions from the College Sports Commission.
In the end as an Alabama fan I could care less. I believe we have our system in place that should grant the approval of all of our NIL deals. Ours were never in question prior to this and doubt they will be now.
quote:
LINK
Posted on 7/9/25 at 5:21 pm to phaz
I don't know about that - Texas Tech seems to be pretty aggressive. I am not going to pretend to know how all these universities are talking to players about it, but Auburn seems to have gone to the extreme end of the pendulum. I could definitely be wrong, but I haven't seen other universities take as strong an approach as Auburn has.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 5:40 pm to UBamaJelly
quote:
Texas Tech seems to be pretty aggressive.
He also addressed that
Posted on 7/9/25 at 6:24 pm to UBamaJelly
quote:
I don't know about that - Texas Tech seems to be pretty aggressive. I am not going to pretend to know how all these universities are talking to players about it, but Auburn seems to have gone to the extreme end of the pendulum.
You can talk to players and make verbal offers but 8/1 is when you can give an actual contract for revenue sharing.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 6:46 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
You can talk to players and make verbal offers but 8/1 is when you can give an actual contract for revenue sharing.
What does any of this have to do with the 26 recruiting class? 8/1 should be irrelevant to recruits. They're not getting revenue sharing this season so why does the 8/1 date mean anything with regards to recruiting?
Posted on 7/9/25 at 6:48 pm to FightingOkra
I suppose seeing the current deals get axed? Let’s be real, the collectives will figure out how to make the money have real transactional legitimacy. Anything that gets slapped will get reworked.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 6:59 pm to Diego Ricardo
Just curious, does anyone know if Bryan Harsin was ever ranked 78th in team recruiting rankings? I’m thinking maybe at Arkansas State but probably not after that, right?
Posted on 7/9/25 at 7:16 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:
I suppose seeing the current deals get axed?
That's what I'm saying though. There are no deals to be axed for these recruits. They can't receive revenue sharing or NIL deals that involve the university until they sign in December at the earliest. Offers and promises to recruits aren't going to be scrutinized by the clearinghouse or anyone else until they are actual players at the school. Right?
Posted on 7/9/25 at 7:27 pm to Sandkhan
quote:
Just curious, does anyone know if Bryan Harsin was ever ranked 78th in team recruiting rankings? I’m thinking maybe at Arkansas State but probably not after that, right?
I really think Jimmy Rane has pulled his money back considerably. He’s probably not in good health and focusing on squaring away his estate. I’d assume Rane will leave Auburn football with some windfall but in your last days your mind would certainly move towards securing your family not football programs.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 7:43 pm to Diego Ricardo
Probably sick of throwing hundreds of millions of dollars (between buyouts, NiL, and facilities) at losing records. That would suck.
Posted on 7/9/25 at 7:50 pm to FightingOkra
quote:
What does any of this have to do with the 26 recruiting class?
Because some schools are already offering revenue sharing to HS recruits. Making promises that some believe they will not be able to keep and the player will flip their commitment come 8/1 when they can be offered a contract for a future guarantee once they get on campus but find out the money may not be there.
Some coaches are already questioning how these schools think they have enough to offer current players and future players with the small cap.
This happened last week with Texas Tech for a 2026 recruit.
quote:
Five-star, blue-chip prospect Felix Ojo out of Mansfield Lake Ridge stunned the nation when he announced his commitment to the Red Raiders on Friday. Texas Tech was not among Ojo's announced final four choices, which included Florida, Texas, Michigan, and Ohio State.
ESPN's Eli Lederman reported shorted after Ojo's commitment that the Mansfield native will join Texas Tech "on a fully guaranteed, 3-year, $5.1 million revenue sharing contract, believed to be one of the largest guaranteed deals in (college football) history."
Page 548 of 570
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News