Started By
Message
re: Tennessee AD Danny White releases statement, goes HAM on NCAA
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:56 pm to djsdawg
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:56 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Perhaps only if the recruit isn’t also doing an unofficial visit to the school.
Once again, you’re focusing on a single tree in a forest. That’s not what the investigation is about. The ncaa is claiming Spyre was not allowed to discuss NIL with Nico period, until he had signed with UT.
This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 5:58 pm
2
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:58 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
They actually can as long as it’s pertaining to an athletes NIL opportunity.
The collective can only do what an individual booster is allowed to do if boosters are donating to a collective.
The money doesn't get laundered just because it's a collective. Same held true pre-NIL. The NCAA has no special rules regarding collectives and has always ignored booster attempts to launder money to make impermissible behavior seem acceptable.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 5:59 pm to DawginSC
quote:
The collective can only do what an individual booster is allowed to do if boosters are donating to a collective.
The collective is an NIL company. NIL is legal. It doesn’t matter what employees are part of said company if they are conducting NIL business.
You act like they are just handing Nico 2 million a year and he doesn’t have to do anything. They are using his name, image and likeness.
He makes appearances, he signs autographs, shoots commercials.This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:00 pm to DawginSC
quote:
The collective can only do what an individual booster is allowed to do if boosters are donating to a collective.
Cite that NCAA bylaw or rule please with when it went into effect. Please.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:00 pm to Smokeys Howl
quote:
NCAA cannot allow discovery.
To the contrary, now that you've sued them, they have the power to issue subpoenas to whomever they want, including Spyre.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:01 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
Once again, you’re focusing on a single tree in a forest. That’s not what the investigation is about.
Honestly, you have no clue what the investigation is about other than your AD's words.
But the fact the state of Tennessee is suing the NCAA (as of yesterday) to make pay to play okay in NIL deals is highly suggestive that the NCAA is investigating Tennessee for pay to play in addition to whatever booster activity they're going after.
And the pay to play part is what's important. That can actually fix the major problem with NIL.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:01 pm to Lucado
quote:
To the contrary, now that you've sued them, they have the power to issue subpoenas to whomever they want, including Spyre.
He’s saying they can’t afford to.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:02 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Honestly, you have no clue what the investigation is about other than your AD's words.
It’s now the AD’s words, the chancellors words and the attorneys general words, but sure.
This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:03 pm to DawginSC
quote:
But the fact the state of Tennessee is suing the NCAA (as of yesterday) to make pay to play okay
I’m done. You can’t argue with stupid.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:03 pm to LewEvansFan
The more a UGA fan talks, the more they look like idiots.
YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!
YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!
This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:03 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
Once again, you’re focusing on a single tree in a forest. That’s not what the investigation is about. The ncaa is claiming Spyre was not allowed to discuss NIL with Nico period, until he had signed with UT.
Seems hard to believe, but I understand why you would believe it.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:04 pm to djsdawg
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 6:13 pm to 3down10
quote:
I told people on this forum years ago that boosters being involved in NIL collectives was going to be an infraction, and that it was already against the rules.
The entire premise of NIL is dishonest. If what you say is true, then why did the NCAA pass a rule allowing athletic departments to partner with collectives?
On paper NIL may be classified as “advertising revenue”, but it’s literally facilitated by schools & only provided to athletes.
This shite just keeps getting funnier.
Collectives based upon donations either need to be completely illegal, or NCAA needs to admit it’s just paying players & share revenue so it can be controlled.
There is an infrastructure in place with these collectives & that is not just going to disappear. NCAA must go.
This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:25 pm to DawginSC
quote:
But the fact the state of Tennessee is suing the NCAA (as of yesterday) to make pay to play okay in NIL deals is highly suggestive that the NCAA is investigating Tennessee for pay to play in addition to whatever booster activity they're going after.
Pay for play is not even part of the discussion. Compensation for use of a private individuals name, image, likeness is the issue.
As a high school student in California (and an increasing number of states) Nico entered into a limited NIL contract that was not contingent on him attending any particular university or college. The deal was not brokered by members of the university of Tennessee athletics staff, no funding from the university of Tennessee was used in any non permissible manner. The contract was honored by both parties involved and was done in a public, aboveboard manner.
Nothing the university, it’s athletic department, Nico(or his family), Spyre, the Vol collective, any client of Spyre, et al, did was in violation of state, federal, or NCAA rules, laws, or bylaws.
The NCAA is going to lose this one and it’s going to either lose quietly and save face or publicly and potentially lose everything.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:26 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
ite that NCAA bylaw or rule please with when it went into effect. Please.
LINK
Here is the definition of a booster (individual):
"13.02.16 Representative of Athletics Interests. A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00, 4/25/18)
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their family members; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program."
I was going to search down examples where the NCAA "followed the money" to issue sanctions for a booster who tried to launder money through another organization, but after reading the above I realized it's unnecessary. A collective IS considered a booster by the above bylaws as they specify "organization" rather than just individual, and the fact collectives associated with a school provide benefits to student athletes of a particular school and promote a given school.
So yeah, the collective can only do what an individual booster can do. They are a booster. The other dawg was spot on.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:43 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
Pay for play is not even part of the discussion.
Yes it is.
Tennessee sued the NCAA yesterday to make pay to play allowable in NIL deals. The only reason they'd do that is if they were being investigated for pay to play
Pay to play is the MAJOR issue. The collective/booster thing is much less important.
I get you don't want to accept that, but that's what a lawsuit about removing the ONLY regulation for NIL (can't be pay to play) is about. Tennessee is trying an end-around by seeing if they can get the courts to make their behavior protected.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:46 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
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."
Inducement = pay to play.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:50 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Pay to play is the MAJOR issue
Well if that’s the case, the investigation should be over rather quickly. All Spyre would need to do is show the NCAA the contract they signed Nico to. As long as the University of Tennessee isn’t mentioned, which they won’t be, then “pay for play” isn’t really in play.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 6:52 pm to DawginSC
quote:
So yeah, the collective can only do what an individual booster can do. They are a booster. The other dawg was spot on.
Can’t figure out why you’re getting downvotes because this is spot on.
The NCAA is the one that allowed universities to partner with collectives & establish the collective infrastructure.
Are we talking about schools facilitating NIL for non-athletes? frick no lol. Just admit it’s paying players & figure out how to implement TV revenue sharing.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 7:02 pm to boston vol
quote:
Well if that’s the case, the investigation should be over rather quickly. All Spyre would need to do is show the NCAA the contract they signed Nico to. As long as the University of Tennessee isn’t mentioned, which they won’t be, then “pay for play” isn’t really in play.
You misunderstand. The reason Tennessee sued the NCAA about pay to play is because the bylaws are intentionally vague. It's not a law that is specific, it's a general statement.
"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."
That's it. That's the only restriction on NIL deals. But the term inducement doesn't mean that the contract has to say "you have to attend Tennessee to get this money". It just means the contract can't have undo influence into having a player attend a particular school.
It can be argued quite easily that if the contract says you have to show up for an appearance in Knoxville every Tuesday and Thursday, it's an inducement to attend the University of Tennessee. Once a month? Perhaps not.
The reason for the suit is likely that UT has some NIL deals that are particularly draconian in terms of making it impossible for a player to transfer and still collect the NIL deal. And the NCAA can say that violates their one regulation on NIL.
And the reality is that's true. That's why Tennessee filed the lawsuit against the NCAA on inducements/pay to play. Tennessee's collective doesn't want their players to still collect if they transfer to Alabama. And that sort of behavior is EXACTLY what that regulation is there to stop.
This is a good thing. If players can collect NIL deals even if they transfer, those deals won't be offered to recruits who can pocket the money and move on. That largely fixes the NIL wild west scenario we've had the last few years. It's a great thing for the sport.
But if UT not being mentioned were all that was needed in a contract to prove an inducement to attend UT doesn't exist, Tennessee wouldn't have sued the NCAA to make inducements protected. That is an obvious sign of what they're worried about.
Page 11 of 16
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News