Started By
Message
re: Tennessee AD Danny White releases statement, goes HAM on NCAA
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:28 pm to DawginSC
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:28 pm to DawginSC
quote:
If the state of Tennessee wins their lawsuit to make pay to play legal, I'm on board with the NCAA ceasing to exist.
This is my point 100%. They are an animal in a corner.
They may lose, but they have to make a statement to attempt to stay relevant.
0
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:29 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Yeah, Tennessee is suing the NCAA to make pay to play legal in response to a NCAA investigation that is NOT about pay to play. That's... logical.
I would suggest rereading.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:29 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
and how they are retroactively classifying collectives as a booster.
A booster is a booster even if they lead a collective. Thats never changed.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:32 pm to paperwasp
Here’s what’s gonna happen.
Nothing.
Then, Tenn will have the most over hyped season (in any sport)…just to lose to South Carolina. That’s right. You clown volunteers could be in line for a natty and still loose to the cocks. Go back to the basement, vols.
Nothing.
Then, Tenn will have the most over hyped season (in any sport)…just to lose to South Carolina. That’s right. You clown volunteers could be in line for a natty and still loose to the cocks. Go back to the basement, vols.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:34 pm to robvols
quote:
The NCAA is DONE thanks to you guys
What do you mean "thanks to you guys"?
Tennessee is the state suing the NCAA to allow NIL deals to be pay to play. That's not us doing it, that's you.
But if Tennessee wins, I support ending the NCAA. If no regulations are allowed, there's no need for a regulatory body. I think it will be bad for the sport, but it's entirely the fault of those suing the NCAA.
As for UGA paying for recruits... we don't. At least not to any meaningful degree. UGA's highest NIL earners every year NIL has been in existence have all been starters going into the season. While UGA's collectives ensure every UGA player (including walk ons) get a bit of NIL love, none of the recruits ever get big NIL contracts.
Alabama largely operates the same way. And that method aligns more with what was intended for NIL. It wasn't supposed to be about talent acquisition. It was supposed to reward players who've had success by letting them endorse stuff.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:35 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
I would suggest rereading.
LINK
The state of Tennessee sued the NCAA yesterday in response to their investigation to make pay to play legal. But hey, don't let facts bother you.
This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:35 pm to djsdawg
A collective is not a booster.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:37 pm to DawginSC
quote:
As for UGA paying for recruits... we don't. At least not to any meaningful degree. UGA's highest NIL earners every year NIL has been in existence have all been starters going into the season. While UGA's collectives ensure every UGA player (including walk ons) get a bit of NIL love, none of the recruits ever get big NIL contracts.
Bc y'all are still selling then buying back blackwater swamp land to recruits families
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:41 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
A collective is not a booster.
Courts have found that in the past, you can't launder money when it comes to booster activities.
Pre-NIL, if I weren't a booster I couldn't collect money from a booster (or group of boosters) and then give it to recruits. We say tons of sanctions for teams doing that sort of thing pre-NIL.
I don't find the booster/collective thing as interesting as the pay to play angle, but your statement isn't accurate at all.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:43 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
NIL is not pay for play.
It is if you're paying a player to play for your school. Tennessee apparently is doing that. That's why the state of Tennessee responded to the NCAA investigating them for NIL infractions by suing the NCAA to allow pay for play.
They have no reason for that lawsuit if they weren't being investigated for exactly that.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:43 pm to DawginSC
A collective is not a booster, because they are an NIL marketing company, it’s not that difficult.
As for the pay to play, the lawsuit has ZERO to do with pay for play. Pay for play would mean the school would be paying athletes.
As for the pay to play, the lawsuit has ZERO to do with pay for play. Pay for play would mean the school would be paying athletes.
quote:
Both Tennessee and Virginia’s Attorneys General filed a lawsuit against the NCAA over what they are calling a violation of federal antitrust laws. According to Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti, the NCAA prohibits prospective student-athletes from discussing potential NIL opportunities with schools or collectives before they enroll at a school. Skrmetti is asking the court to declare that the ban violates the Sherman Act and issue an injunction that would stop the NCAA from enforcing the ban.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:46 pm to DawginSC
quote:
That's why the state of Tennessee responded to the NCAA investigating them for NIL infractions by suing the NCAA to allow pay for play.
Wrong. Read or get the frick out.
quote:
Both Tennessee and Virginia’s Attorneys General filed a lawsuit against the NCAA over what they are calling a violation of federal antitrust laws. According to Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti, the NCAA prohibits prospective student-athletes from discussing potential NIL opportunities with schools or collectives before they enroll at a school. Skrmetti is asking the court to declare that the ban violates the Sherman Act and issue an injunction that would stop the NCAA from enforcing the ban.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:46 pm to LewEvansFan
You see that OR statement? OR COLLECTIVES.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:49 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
collective is not a booster.
Of course, but A booster can be in a collective. They don’t get to do whatever they want just because they joined a group.
Did you ever confirm if a on campus visit occurred with coaches on this trip?
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:52 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Apparently the main bone of contention is his flying on a boosters private jet before signing
Geez Tennessee, you’re suppose to bribe the kid by telling him the local laundromat wants to give him $500,000 for a 3x3 inch newspaper ad. It’s all because we care about his amazing name and likeness. Nothing to do with football.
The real rule is more clown world that what UT did.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:54 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Of course, but A booster can be in a collective. They don’t get to do whatever they want just because they joined a group.
They actually can as long as it’s pertaining to an athletes NIL opportunity.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:55 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
A collective is not a booster, because they are an NIL marketing company, it’s not that difficult.
As for the pay to play, the lawsuit has ZERO to do with pay for play. Pay for play would mean the school would be paying athletes.
You have more of a reading problem than I do. From the link I posted:
"The lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee seeks to undercut NCAA rules against recruiting inducements and claims the association is "enforcing rules that unfairly restrict how athletes can commercially use their name, image and likeness at a critical juncture in the recruiting calendar."
The key word is inducements. It refers to this section of the NCAA NIL bylaws, which is the part that prohibits pay to play:
"22.01.2 Offers and Inducements. Name, image and likeness activities may not be used as an inducement for an individual to enroll or remain enrolled at a specific institution."
The lawsuit is seeking to remove the NCAA ban on inducements. That is literally ONLY about pay to play.
As for a collective not being a booster, you seem very confused about that too. A booster is anyone who gives money to a university. If that money is laundered through another person or organization, it's still considered booster activity. If you are a UT booster and pay me and I give that money to players, it's still considered to be booster activity regardless of the fact I never gave a penny to UT. Same holds through if you filter the money through a NIL marketing company.
Since collectives are largely funded ONLY by donations from boosters of a school, any activity they take would have to be allowed for an individual booster to take.
While the collective isn't technically a booster any more that I would be if I were acting as your bag man, they would be covered by booster regulations in he NCAA because the money comes from boosters. Laundering has never been allowed for booster money.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:56 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
They actually can as long as it’s pertaining to an athletes NIL opportunity.
Perhaps only if the recruit isn’t also doing an unofficial visit to the school.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:56 pm to DawginSC
Buddy, read or get the frick out.
quote:
Both Tennessee and Virginia’s Attorneys General filed a lawsuit against the NCAA over what they are calling a violation of federal antitrust laws. According to Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti, the NCAA prohibits prospective student-athletes from discussing potential NIL opportunities with schools or collectives before they enroll at a school. Skrmetti is asking the court to declare that the ban violates the Sherman Act and issue an injunction that would stop the NCAA from enforcing the ban.
Page 10 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News