quote:

Not according to the NCAA.

From official NCAA Q&A guidance on new NIL policies:

quote:
. What is the impact of the interim NIL policy on prospective student-athletes?

Prospective student-athletes may engage in the same types of NIL opportunities available to current stu-
dent-athletes under the interim NIL policy without impacting their NCAA eligibility. NIL opportunities may not
be used as a recruiting inducement or as a substitute for pay-for-play. Individuals are encouraged to consider
state laws, if applicable, and the rules of any relevant amateur governing bodies.

Boosters can give prospective recruits anything they can otherwise give currently enrolled student athletes, as long as the deal isn't strictured in such a way as to be dependant upon the recruit's eventual enrollment in the school.

As long as thr booster is ok with throwing money at the recruit, and not getting it back if they decide to sign with another school, it's all good.

I'm not really sure why you think your response disputes what I said. Engaging in the same types of NIL opportunities does not at all say that contracts can continue.

As I said previously, I saw no reason why a contract could not end as they went to college, and then another new contract added at that time. Aka "Engaging in the same types of NIL opportunities".

But going even further, why did you ignore the sentence after the one you put in bold letters? That is where boosters come in.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Krampus

Member since Nov 2018

5207 posts

Posted on 6/15/22 at 1:33 pm to 3down10

quote:
But going even further, why did you ignore the sentence after the one you put in bold letters? That is where boosters come in.

I didn't. In fact about 2/3 of my post addressed it directly:

quote:
Boosters can give prospective recruits anything they can otherwise give currently enrolled student athletes, as long as the deal isn't strictured in such a way as to be dependant upon the recruit's eventual enrollment in the school.

As long as thr booster is ok with throwing money at the recruit, and not getting it back if they decide to sign with another school, it's all good.

If the booster makes the deal in such a way as to make it dependent on the recruits enrollment with a particular school, that's a violation.

If the booster promises more deals if the recruit signs with a particular school, that's a violation.

As long as the booster makes a deal with the recruit that does not depend in any way on the recruit eventually signing with the booster's school, or promising any future deals dependant upon signing woth said school, there is no violation.

If the recruits assumes there will be future deals if they enroll in a particular school, that's on them. No violation.

Boosters can wine and dine recruits all they want as long as they don't make anything officially dependant on the recruit eventually signing on the dotted line.

This post was edited on 6/15/22 at 1:35 pm

2 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board