re: 1k NFL cuts by Monday, how certain your school won’t recruit anyone?

quote:

---

You knew what I meant. Players are generating all of that money that is going to the universities and couldn't even get a small piece of the pie. If you don't think they should, then fine. But universities offer scholarships for a reason. It's because they know those players are going to generate hundreds of millions of dollars. Throwing them a scholly isn't appropriate compensation for that amount of revenue (happy?) that is going to be spend as profit by the universities.

---

Players don't generate revenue, schools do. If the players generated revenue, these other leagues wouldn't keep failing.

Their value is for competitive reasons. The money they are making wasn't even paid by the "NCAA", it's paid by private boosters/businesses who want their team to have a competitive advantage.

Now they some "revenue sharing" that just went into effect last month, but it's not because they generate revenue.

quote:

---

Yes and the rules have appropriately changed. The players deserved more than the scholarship they were receiving considering how much money they bringing in to the conferences and universities.

---

We see students going into large sums of debt for a fraction of the benefits they get. We see people join the military and risk their lives for 3 years to get a fraction of what these players get.

All based on the myth they bring in revenue again.

quote:

---

You're being wildly disingenuous if you think that is a comparable example. You're not ineligible from purchasing the TV just because you left the store. These players were after they were told they could no longer purchase the TV.

They were told they could no longer play even though they wanted to, then 3 weeks after they sign, the NCAA says, "Oh wait, nvm you would still be eligible, but too bad so sad".

It's a pretty obvious exception the NCAA should have made considering the circumstances, but as per usual the NCAA made the WRONG decision.

---

Why would you purchase the same TV twice? The point is that just because things change after you did things doesn't mean you are then entitled to everything that changed and followed.

It could have been the day after they sign, or the day after you buy a TV and it doesn't matter. You got the terms and conditions that were active and what you agreed to while you were there. Future deals with others doesn't grant you the same priviledges.

quote:

---

The class of 2022 is 100% entitled to want to come back. The NCAA screwed them by dragging their feet.

---

I've already addressed this. They aren't entitled to anything. This is really just another symptom of our shitty entitlement society that has been raised to think everyone that has more than them has gotten it by ripping them off.

If my landscaper does my yard for $100 and he does my neighbor's yard for $80. He does NOT owe me $20. I am NOT entitled to my neighbor's price. I am free to ask my landscaper why and for the same price, and my landscaper is entitled to tell me to take it or leave it.

quote:

---

The NCAA doesn't have the right as deemed by the courts, so you're wrong.

And as many terrible decisions as they make, I'm glad the courts are getting involved and calling them on their bull shite and CONSTANT bad decisions.

Small handful of players who wanted to stay and not go pro, just wanted retro active opportunity to return in the face of a situation that has never happened and won't happen again. And the only reason it happened is because the NCAA keeps tripping over itself with terrible decisions.

As I've stated many times before, all the NCAA had to do was let these 16 players use the 5th year of eligibility that they screwed them out of because they drug their feet on the new rule and this is an issue for a couple of weeks then it goes away. But AGAIN as per usual they sat around and agreed to make the worst decision possible.

---

Courts do not decide right from wrong. The rulings are largely based on the arguments made by those involved, which is why getting the right lawyer is important. Even supreme court cases get over-turned/changed at a rate of more than once a year.

In the case of a TRO, only one side is even allowed to make an argument.

The NCAA is currently getting screwed by laws that were meant for major national for-profit corporations and by people with an agenda to pretend they have a monopoly while being a voluntary organization.

They were meant to break up huge oil and railroad monopolies. Not to prevent a voluntary organization from being able to have rules that its members agree to. The NCAA does not participate in any activities to enforce a monopoly other than to provide a good product. In terms of football, they also aren't even the only sport. The players have no options not because of the NCAA, but because the NFL doesn't want them, and the other leagues out there can't even offer that scholarships worth of compensation that you claim is so worthless to compete.

quote:

---

Defending the NCAA....jfc

---

I'm defending the right of Americans to be able to form a voluntary organization with a set of rules they all agree to in order to create a product based on a competitive environment, and that the government has absolutely no real right to interfere with that.

And yet because a court refuses to look at the spirit of the law, the only way we are going to get that is by congress making an exception. Great for the organization getting the exception, but still a loss of rights for everyone else. Highlighted by the very fact the NCAA is even dealing with this while the NFL already has an exception while being purely for profit. As the idea of needing rules for competitive reasons is obviously quite different than price fixing or other monopolistic actions and the judges involved should be embarrassed.

quote:

---

Am I crying incessantly?

---

No, you are dan

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

The cornerstone of the state court lawsuits against the NCAA seeking another year of eligibility has been a breach of the implied covenant of good faith (evidence of arbitrary enforcement or bad faith is required to make that claim) in performing the contract between the NCAA and member institutions, of which college athletes are intended, third-party beneficiaries. That status is what allows them to sue for breach of contract. Countless courts have rightly issued injunctions on those grounds.

The main reason, but not the only reason, I’m so confident the Conferences will prevail in litigation against college athletes is that, if you apply the law as it stands in every state, it is legally impossible for the players to prove a claim against the Conferences for breach of the implied covenant of good faith as third-party beneficiaries of a contract: 1) there is no factual or legal basis to argue that the Conferences’ Constitutions or Bylaws make the players third-party beneficiaries of the contractual relationship between the Conferences and their schools; and 2) neither the recent “NFL/NBA rule” nor the SEC intraconference transfer rule have been applied inconsistently, arbitrarily, or in bad faith.

Contrast these Conference rules with the NCAA’s ridiculously inconsistent application of its own rules. The comparison is like apples to oranges.

Whatever state trial judges may do, all of these cases will ultimately be decided by applying the law that exists in every state. There is no state - including Louisiana - where the law supports a valid legal claim for breach of contract against any Conference. As for the players’ lawyers’ assertion that a Conference can be enjoined as the alter ego of the NCAA or for acting in concert with the NCAA, that argument is likewise contrary to the established law in every state. As they say in Louisiana, that dog won’t hunt.

Nor do I believe there is any basis for alleging that any Conference has violated the Sherman Act or its state law counterparts. No one seems to take that assertion seriously - not even the people making it.

Like it or not, the evidence and applicable law is what determines final outcomes when cases are appealed - not what lawyers say in interviews or on social media. Similarly, where state law is involved in a federal court case invoking the U.S. Constitution (such as the Big 12’s lawsuit), federal district judges will carefully apply the law of the state where the controversy arose and are known for their unwillingness to heed to pressure from any Governor or fan base.

That’s why I’d be telling any school that is considering putting a former NFL or NBA player on their roster they will likely regret making such a risky decision - one that will probably be career-ending for anyone who was willing to take that gamble.

That’s my professional opinion after being in this business for forty years - not to suggest that should slow down the critics and self-taught X-Lawyers.

---

quote:

---

the problem is the ncaa not caring to look around the corner

---

The rule doesn't exist until they pass it. You can't account for a rule months before it passes.

They could have at best waited longer to announce the rule, and then it would have been the same result - they weren't eligible for the year.

quote:

---

What’s so adorable is that you believe others won’t out spend you if they need the same thing

---

All summer long the national media has gone from LSU brought in the #1 portal class to LSU spent $20mil to LSU spent $40mil to LSU may have the most expensive roster in CFB. So if someone "outspends" LSU for one of these players, they'll just be catching up

quote:

---

hastens the demise of college football

---

A lot has happened in the last few years that has significantly changed the sport but this issue this week is not one of them. This is nothing. It's about 40 players and there's nothing in the rulings that makes this a yearly thing

quote:

---

there is no factual or legal basis to argue that the Conferences’ Constitutions or Bylaws make the players third-party beneficiaries of the contractual relationship between the Conferences and their schools

---

The courts aren't buying this anymore. The players are essentially state/university employees, not indentured servants.

quote:

---

neither the recent “NFL/NBA rule” nor the SEC intraconference transfer rule have been applied inconsistently, arbitrarily, or in bad faith

---

Factually incorrect. Class of 2022 players were cheated out of a 5th year of eligibility.

quote:

---

There is no state - including Louisiana - where the law supports a valid legal claim for breach of contract against any Conference

---

This might have been true in the 1970's but judges aren't buying it now and even Sankey agrees.

quote:

---

As for the players’ lawyers’ assertion that a Conference can be enjoined as the alter ego of the NCAA or for acting in concert with the NCAA, that argument is likewise contrary to the established law in every state

---

The judges' position is that the conference cannot stop the teams from playing eligible players and they can't punish them either, which is of course the rational position to take.

quote:

---

federal district judges will carefully apply the law of the state where the controversy arose and are known for their unwillingness to heed to pressure from any Governor or fan base

---

If I were a federal judge and this appeal came across my desk, I would tell whoever to come back to me when you have a collective bargaining agreement. You can't run around all day every day acting like you're a professional league in every sense of the word, players not even going to class or living on campus, and then come cry to me that you can't treat the players like slaves anymore with $50 handshakes under the table.

Either be a pro league and have a CBA or scrap the whole thing and return to complete amateurism with only student athletes, no NIL, no nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If they appeal to the federal level, I would imagine they will get treated like the big boys - the NFL.

There's no way, NO WAY, anybody in the sport, including the CFP wants any of that smoke. The TV contracts are way way way too lucrative. The universities have not cared about butts in seats for years now because it doesn't matter. The TV contracts run the show. The TV contracts want the semi pro players with all the NIL commercials - everything.

USC is ranked 14 and is in the B1G. That stadium wasn't even half full today for the first game of a potential playoff season and I guarantee you the university didn't bat an eye.

And if you're going to wring your hands over the loss of rah rah rah sis boom bah, you are completely free to go watch Div 2 or 3. Those people are there for the love of the sport.

gaay thread

You typed all that after saying you werent gonna watch now.

quote:

---

Ehhh. I don't think there's many people that would agree with you on this. Pretty much everybody recognized that NIL was needed precisely because the players do generate revenue

---

It doesn't matter how many people are wrong about something. If the players were generating the revenue other leagues wouldn't have fallen flat. Another league could appear tomorrow and make a better offer than the NCAA - and yet it never once happened.

The truth is people are fans of schools, not players. I don't give a crap who puts on the Alabama uniform.

Furthermore, NIL money doesn't even come from the schools or the revenue generated, it comes from fans who want a competitive advantage, which is exactly why the rules previously prevented it.

That is where their value is.