Started By
Message
re: The NIL Ruling has nothing to do with the portal. The SCOTUS did not rule on the Portal.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:25 pm to OU Guy
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:25 pm to OU Guy
quote:
So, a 5 star recruit goes into a commitment to aTm and gets a new $100k truck. Then decommits and goes to OU driving his new truck. The charm of your idea is he milked a another schools booster/vendor for $100k so now the next 5 star to be kicking the tires at aTm isn’t offered a new truck because they gave 5 trucks away to players on other teams and are trucked out.
One could use your idea to milk the cow with top recruits and leave no milk for those who might actually stay. But now with no milk left you lose out on future top recruits.
In a way your idea might help slow down NIL deals as money men are reluctant to pay money to someone who may never play a down for their school
The point is NIL is NOT intended to buy recruits. It was intended to reward players who've had success on their teams by allowing them to earn endorsements based on their success.
The NIL deals for recruits was an unintended consequence.
The point of making the offers locked in is:
1) It doesn't punish the player/employee (which the supreme court has already shown is a no-go).
2) The NCAA rules ALREADY say that the money cannot be dependent upon attending a specific school. Boosters get around this by not actually signing the contract until after the player signs with the school and making the payout a yearly renewable contract so if they leave it doesn't get renewed.
3) The last sentence is the point. By making verbal offers binding and forcing those offers to be recorded (also known as verbal contracts... which are ALREADY binding in civil law), we redirect NIL to what it was intended to be... a reward for successful players, not a means to buy recruits.
1
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:31 pm to 3down10
Perhaps you would and perhaps you’d win, but the quotes from Kavanaugh … no left winger … cited above are about as unsubtle as a sledgehammer to the temple as to what the temperature of the court is on such things, and there also have been similar bipartisan signals from Congress.
All the discussion here in all the threads on this is from the standpoint of college sports fans upset that people are messing with their schools and their ballgames. That mindset … and again, I understand it and am not unsympathetic to it and will be right there bitching on a lot of it … will not have any relevance to future legal actions in this stuff. The only voice fans will have is to stop watching.
All the discussion here in all the threads on this is from the standpoint of college sports fans upset that people are messing with their schools and their ballgames. That mindset … and again, I understand it and am not unsympathetic to it and will be right there bitching on a lot of it … will not have any relevance to future legal actions in this stuff. The only voice fans will have is to stop watching.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:33 pm to meansonny
quote:
No. The Supreme Court says that the player owns his name, image, and likeness. A booster can negotiate use and there is nothing the university can do to stop it. It is not the university's purview to stop.
The most common form of booster funded NIL is through the collectives. Many teams have players in different collectives (more than one per school).
I don't believe that legislature or the ncaa or the universities can do anything about NIL other than the universities to continue to report it.
That means... the transfer SOPs are on the table to help college football moving forward.
I suggest the mandatory redshirt for undergrads. There is no downside except for the booster who wants a year 1 return on the NIL investment on the field. And I'm not going to shed a tear for that individual.
This is false.
It's no different than boosters not being able to buy players previously. The NCAA and schools have never had the power to prevent boosters from paying the players. The NCAA does however have the ability to punish the schools, who will also in turn take action against the booster.
The booster would be removed from all school functions and would no longer be allowed to be associated with the school at all. They would not be able to buy season tickets, they would not be able to attend school functions, etc.
So yes, technically the NCAA can not prevent a booster from doing those things. The NCAA will do what it has always done, and that is punish the schools and others associated with it.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:39 pm to InkStainedWretch
quote:
Perhaps you would and perhaps you’d win, but the quotes from Kavanaugh … no left winger … cited above are about as unsubtle as a sledgehammer to the temple as to what the temperature of the court is on such things, and there also have been similar bipartisan signals from Congress.
All the discussion here in all the threads on this is from the standpoint of college sports fans upset that people are messing with their schools and their ballgames. That mindset … and again, I understand it and am not unsympathetic to it and will be right there bitching on a lot of it … will not have any relevance to future legal actions in this stuff. The only voice fans will have is to stop watching.
The issue here is that it assumes the universities(NCAA) have no rights at all.
That they do not have the right to enter into a contract/agreement with a player that includes restrictions. They most certainly do.
That all the power rests with the player and the player alone. That the NCAA/Universities are completely at the mercy of the players.
That's quite a step from saying the kids have the right to earn NIL money separate from the schools.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:46 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
2 sides to every coin. They also get fired at the drop of a hat at any point during the season.
Yes, coaches get fired and get paid millions. When a team is ready to drop a player, that's just the end of the road.
quote:
There is plenty of need to get restrictive.
For example, a NIL collective approaches your starting QB or RB or WR. They say "we are going to more than double what they are giving you. maybe triple. JUST DON'T GET HURT!"
That play is now playing it safe and not giving it his all. After all, going to another place and getting a massive pay raise depends on me being healthy.
Maybe, but to some degree this is what a market looks like. If a player is a goldbrick, his value is going to go down.
Coaches have no one to blame but themselves on this, and it's hard to gin up any sympathy for them. After all, coaches were the ones who blocked players from transferring, or demanded they transfer down, or blacklisted 3 dozen schools from being a place a player could go. They abused the system for decades--decades--and now after 2 years they want to whine and cry.
The reason this is wide open is because of coach behavior, plain and simple.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:48 pm to 3down10
quote:
The issue here is that it assumes the universities(NCAA) have no rights at all.
That they do not have the right to enter into a contract/agreement with a player that includes restrictions. They most certainly do.
That all the power rests with the player and the player alone. That the NCAA/Universities are completely at the mercy of the players.
That's quite a step from saying the kids have the right to earn NIL money separate from the schools.
There are plenty of ways to fight this and win, but the NCAA has no balls and is scared of being seen as "against" the "kids" despite the fact that these new rules are bad for 99 percent of college athletes.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:49 pm to DawginSC
I agree with you. Only NCAA can fix. But they won’t.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:50 pm to 3down10
quote:
I'd take that bet.
Look at these quotes... I wouldn't bet 9-0 but I'd bet the NCAA would lose... he blows the doors off and calls the NCAA a business.
quote:
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.
"The NCAA is not above the law."
Kavanaugh's opinion tears into the NCAA's assertion that amateurism is, as he wrote, "the defining feature of college sports." Such "innocuous labels," as Kavanaugh called them, "cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America."
Guess what else restaurants can't do... they can't stop you from leaving Wendy's to work at Burger King...
quote:
"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 3:01 pm to Jjdoc
The court will strike down the portal rules. If that’s the case, the coaches will have to sit out a year also before they go to a new school, you cannot prohibit the players from having the freedom of going where they want to. This is not China where the government tells you what to do. Also, the players are not employees.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 3:06 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTAL WHICH THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON!
Bless your heart Jjdoc. You tried.
Go read what Kavanaugh wrote. He made it crystal clear that if the NCAA does anything to try to limit what college athletes can earn that they will suffer a resounding loss in court.
Please read this
In his opinion, Kavanaugh seemed to invite more legal challenges to the NCAA’s caps on all forms of compensation for athletes, not just those tethered to education, which was the narrower focus of this particular Supreme Court case. “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”
Posted on 12/7/22 at 3:12 pm to 3down10
quote:
The issue here is that it assumes the universities(NCAA) have no rights at all.
That they do not have the right to enter into a contract/agreement with a player that includes restrictions. They most certainly do.
That all the power rests with the player and the player alone. That the NCAA/Universities are completely at the mercy of the players.
That's quite a step from saying the kids have the right to earn NIL money separate from the schools.
You're dead wrong. The NCAA has plenty of rights but they can't violate antitrust law. They can enter contracts with players and at that point the players are employees and must be paid market rate with market terms OR they can enter into a CBA which will likely be a revenue sharing structure with some trade mechanism. Read the quotes I posted in this thread. Can Wendy's tell an employee he can't work at McDonalds? Can your boss tell you that you can't quit and work at another similar company?
Folks can't seem to grasp that the NCAA violates antitrust law pretty clearly and people just let it slide for a while because it wasn't a multi billion dollar industry.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 3:26 pm to meansonny
quote:
I don't believe that legislature or the ncaa or the universities can do anything about NIL other than the universities to continue to report it.
I believe they can absolutely make it more favorable for the players.
As I suggested, the cleanest solution is to put rules on boosters in place that make it so NIL deals are binding as soon as they're offered... just like a verbal contract. It's already not allowed for the NIL deals to be dependent upon a player being on a team. YOu can't actually say "come to UGA and we'll give you a NIL deal". .. but boosters get around that by actually saying that in private to the player but not signing the deal until the player has signed with the school.
By putting all offers in the open and making them binding... that Athens car dealership can't say "I'll give you 100K a year to play at UGA.". They have to say "I'm offering you 100K a year to make these commercials." Then the player can agree to that and make the commercials regardless of what school they attend.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 3:47 pm to ALhunter
People are acting like this has only now become a business. It’s been a business for a long time. Coach Bryant famously said in the 1970s that if ABC wanted him to schedule a game at midnight, Bama would play at midnight.
The problem now is that the money has gotten beyond insane, there are so many more hawgs feeding at the trough, and the players are demanding their share of the slop and the “scholarships, room, board, books, medical care” etc. that people bring up ain’t gonna cut it.
Someone said in another thread that fans act like they’re entitled. I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that college sports has been the last bastion where fans’ interests has been a big deal because of the traditions that have been handed down for generations and the passion college fans have and the idea that it’s about schools not individuals.
I do think there are some fans who think these players are gladiators who exist solely to entertain them, which is silly, but the rub here is that the changes are ruining people’s ideal of college sports. Of course you could just as easily say the ideal was naive and it’s time to rip the mask off.
The problem now is that the money has gotten beyond insane, there are so many more hawgs feeding at the trough, and the players are demanding their share of the slop and the “scholarships, room, board, books, medical care” etc. that people bring up ain’t gonna cut it.
Someone said in another thread that fans act like they’re entitled. I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that college sports has been the last bastion where fans’ interests has been a big deal because of the traditions that have been handed down for generations and the passion college fans have and the idea that it’s about schools not individuals.
I do think there are some fans who think these players are gladiators who exist solely to entertain them, which is silly, but the rub here is that the changes are ruining people’s ideal of college sports. Of course you could just as easily say the ideal was naive and it’s time to rip the mask off.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 3:56 pm to 3down10
quote:
The existing rules would prevent boosters from offering players NIL deals. They are only able to do it if they show market value for what is being done.
That is already in the rules, and the supreme court ruling doesn't change that at all.
well crap, i thought the "rules" didn't disqualify boosters from paying for NIL, which is why there was no such thing as market value. If that is so, for heaven's sake enforce the rules. I'm old as dirt but payment for NIL should be for NIL, not to sign or to play.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 4:26 pm to 3down10
quote:
This is false.
It's no different than boosters not being able to buy players previously. The NCAA and schools have never had the power to prevent boosters from paying the players. The NCAA does however have the ability to punish the schools, who will also in turn take action against the booster.
The booster would be removed from all school functions and would no longer be allowed to be associated with the school at all. They would not be able to buy season tickets, they would not be able to attend school functions, etc.
So yes, technically the NCAA can not prevent a booster from doing those things. The NCAA will do what it has always done, and that is punish the schools and others associated with it.
That isn't constitutional.
Gillette is the official razor of the nfl.
Gillette is the official razor of the New England Patriots.
Gillette, nor the nfl, nor the new England Patriots can control their players name, image, and likeness. David Andrews can get a paid sponsorship for Norelco.
Example 2.
A large law firm has UGA boosters in executive positions. That lawfirm pays NIL to a UGA football player for a billboard advertisement.
You are saying this is a violation of ncaa rules. I am saying it is not. And there is nothing the ncaa is going to do to the largest lawfirm in the world about it.
For every rule the ncaa writes with NIL. There will be a smarter loophole to offset it.
Who do you think is funding half of the collectives? Students throwing their $15/month?
Posted on 12/7/22 at 5:07 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
There are plenty of ways to fight this and win, but the NCAA has no balls and is scared of being seen as "against" the "kids" despite the fact that these new rules are bad for 99 percent of college athletes.
You are exactly right. All these rules are being put in for what in the end amounts to benefiting the top 1% of players, while at the same time screwing over the other 99% who basically have 0 NIL value.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 5:13 pm to SneezyBeltranIsHere
quote:
Please read this
In his opinion, Kavanaugh seemed to invite more legal challenges to the NCAA’s caps on all forms of compensation for athletes, not just those tethered to education, which was the narrower focus of this particular Supreme Court case. “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”
has nothing to do with:
quote:
THE PORTAL WHICH THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON!
NIL does not EQUAL Portal!
Not sure what's so hard to grasp with that
Posted on 12/7/22 at 5:16 pm to meansonny
quote:
That isn't constitutional.
What isn't constitutional?
quote:
Gillette is the official razor of the nfl.
Gillette is the official razor of the New England Patriots.
Gillette, nor the nfl, nor the new England Patriots can control their players name, image, and likeness. David Andrews can get a paid sponsorship for Norelco.
And college players are able to do the same with NIL. I am talking about the NIL deals only from the boosters of the schools themselves, not the legitimate NIL deals a player might get otherwise right.
With the NIL ruling, Bryce Young was perfectly fine doing all those Nissan commercials, and all those Dr Pepper commercials. Those were legitimate NIL deals. That girl from LSU that had all those followers, I'm sure she has plenty of legit NIL deals.
Those are not the issue. The issue is when boosters do it and it's nothing more than abusing the NIL rules to implement pay for play schemes. That's what the NCAA has the power to prevent, because boosters are seen as representatives of the schools.
So if you want to be a booster, you can't do those things.
And this is btw according to the rules that already exist. The only thing that is needed at this point is enforcement of those rules. The NCAA previously said they were doing that, but it's kind of seems like they need to hurry up because it's only getting worse.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 6:06 pm to meansonny
quote:
Example 2.
A large law firm has UGA boosters in executive positions. That lawfirm pays NIL to a UGA football player for a billboard advertisement.
You are saying this is a violation of ncaa rules. I am saying it is not. And there is nothing the ncaa is going to do to the largest lawfirm in the world about it.
For every rule the ncaa writes with NIL. There will be a smarter loophole to offset it.
Who do you think is funding half of the collectives? Students throwing their $15/month?
The NCAA is an organization that schools voluntary join. No school is ever forced legally to take the punishments given, it's all voluntary.
There are no laws involved, only the internal rules of an organization.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 12/7/22 at 6:12 pm to 3down10
Something many seem to miss which I am curious going forward is how will NIL be defined. The courts only stated that the NCAA could not put limitations on educated related expenses but did not say non-educated related expenses could be prevented.
The is another case currently trying to work itself up the chain to get official ruling for NIL. So SCOTUS has yet to rule on NIL as well.
quote:
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in favor of the plaintiffs, albeit a narrow decision dealing only with education-related benefits and not the larger issue of pay-for-play or other big-picture issues with college athletes. And there was language the NCAA has since claimed as a “win” for itself: It was still free to create limits on benefits unrelated to education.
The is another case currently trying to work itself up the chain to get official ruling for NIL. So SCOTUS has yet to rule on NIL as well.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News