Started By
Message
re: Alabama: Other schools are buying players
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:23 am to SidewalkTiger
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:23 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
You don't understand much of anything clearly.
We will see. Time will tell. Clearly one of us is wrong. If the system wasn’t able to legally be exploited we wouldn’t have people asking for federal legislation to fix it.
I would say there’s more actual evidence supporting my statements than there is that is supporting yours.
But we shall see.
1
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:27 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:How can this be such a difficult concept for them to understand?
Aggies can't seem to grasp the simple concept of existing players receiving NIL money vs enticing recruits with NIL money.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 11:41 am
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:29 am to BigSneezy
quote:
Clearly one of us is wrong. If the system wasn’t able to legally be exploited we wouldn’t have people asking for federal legislation to fix it.
That issue is at the whole other end of the spectrum, some states are at a disadvantage because they can't participate with NIL as much as other states.
That has nothing to do with pay for play, again, you have vastly misunderstood this whole issue and most of what has been stated here.
quote:
I would say there’s more actual evidence supporting my statements than there is that is supporting yours.
Everything you've stated is based on possibilities and opinions, the facts remain what they are.
It is currently an NCAA violation to entice recruits with NIL money, that's pay for play.
A university can absolutely be held responsible if one if their boosters violates this rule.
They have no legal leg to stand on if they get sanctioned for violating that rule as the Supreme Court has not ruled that the NCAA can't regulate non educational benefits.
The Supreme Court could possibly make that ruling someday, it seems that at least one justice is in favor of it, but that is all opinions and possibilities at this point.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:37 am to aTm boy
quote:
Translation: LSU has no issues with paying players. But they can't pay as much as others and it is not fair.
LSU can pay as much and they currently are paying as much or more than A&M is.
It’s not about how much money the boosters have, it’s about how much they’re willing to spend.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:38 am to BigSneezy
quote:Wrong. Membership in the NCAA is optional. Members agree to NCAA rules, including prohibition of boosters involvement w/ recruits. If the NCAA imposes a penalty, the University has the option to comply or ignore the penalty. If they ignore it, they can be expelled from the NCAA. It's no more complicated than that. Participation is 100% voluntary.
Yes, the NCAA could give A&M sanctions but they would immediately be sued because A&M would rightly claim that they had no legal ability to do anything else. And A&M would win.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 11:40 am
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:38 am to Keith101
quote:
quote:Aggies can't seem to grasp the simple concept of existing players receiving NIL money vs enticing recruits with NIL money.How is this a difficult concept for them?
I’ll explain. I agree with the goal of your statement.
However, fundamentally, the player market rate is being controlled by the NCAA’s rules.
I get that it’s being done in the name of competitive fairness and I understand the goal.
However, legally, technically this is a price control of a market. And such things are not legal in our nation.
Now, if the players agreed to constraints, through some sort of contract, that’s a different animal entirely. That’s legal because players agreed to it.
But as it stands now, the NCAA has just made “rules” regarding this and the SCOTUS has stated (in different but related rulings) how they feel about players losing out on whatever their market rate is deemed to be.
That is the issue. No one wants to “exploit” anything but in this environment without player contracts or agreed upon salary caps per player we are in a world where the highest bidder wins.
I think it sucks. And I agree with the goal you speak of.
But it’s not as easy as that. Unfortunately.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:44 am to BigSneezy
Please stay in the little 12. We have enough texas ignorance in the conference with 8&forfiet cheat quit and whine
Better yet you stay where you are and get them to go back
Better yet you stay where you are and get them to go back
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 11:46 am
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:45 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
the 39ers
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:47 am to Keith101
quote:
Wrong. Membership in the NCAA is optional. Members agree to NCAA rules, including prohibition of boosters involvement w/ recruits. If the NCAA imposes a penalty, the University has the option to comply or ignore the penalty. If they ignore it, they can be expelled from the NCAA. It's no more complicated than that. Participation is 100% voluntary.
Sir. If the NCAA requires its membership to do something that is illegal for them to do, they are in fact harming the member institution as they have made significant investments assuming that the NCAA will comply with all the laws of the land in every state. Yes, of course membership is voluntary. But that doesn’t remove the damages if harmed. They would be sued. For sure.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:48 am to agswin
quote:
Alabama HC: Tide players were paid $3M last year but other schools are buying players.
Good Lord, WHAT DO YOU NOT GET? Geez Christmas. Saban in fine, totally fine, fine, with NIL and players on the team getting paid. He has ZERO PROBLEM.
He has a problem with players being promised or given the MONEY as a recruiting tool....which is illegal.
Good lord, is it you don't understand or don't WANT to understand Sabans issue?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:48 am to BigSneezy
quote:
However, fundamentally, the player market rate is being controlled by the NCAA’s rules.
I get that it’s being done in the name of competitive fairness and I understand the goal.
No it isn't.
Players are receiving NIL deals all over the spectrum.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:51 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:PRIOR to making it legal. What part of that do you folks continue to overlook?
Aggies can't seem to grasp the simple concept of existing players receiving NIL money
This dick riding of Saban is disgusting.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:52 am to BigSneezy
quote:aTm is not going to sue the NCAA or the SEC, they'll simply fall in line like every other member institution does.
Sir. If the NCAA requires its membership to do something that is illegal for them to do, they are in fact harming the member institution as they have made significant investments assuming that the NCAA will comply with all the laws of the land in every state. Yes, of course membership is voluntary. But that doesn’t remove the damages if harmed. They would be sued. For sure.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:54 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:bullshite. The 100% intent of NIL was to make legal that which was so rampant it could no longer be hidden.
That was 100% the intent of NIL. Players that play and produce get rewarded for on the field success.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:55 am to TouchdownTony
The fact that you think Saban is not paying players to come to Alabama is hilarious. Players will choose other schools that are paying over alabama if Alabama is not paying. It happened last year. It is not happening this year.
It’s not a coincidence that A&M hauled in 8 5 stars last year. It’s also not a coincidence that other schools are not letting that happen again this year. Everyone is paying, and if you believe otherwise you are delusional.
It’s not a coincidence that A&M hauled in 8 5 stars last year. It’s also not a coincidence that other schools are not letting that happen again this year. Everyone is paying, and if you believe otherwise you are delusional.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:56 am to BigSneezy
quote:
I mean really. I’m not condoning it. I’m just saying I don’t see how anyone will “nail A&M”.
Actually yes, they do expect you to monitor it. Bama was basically given the death penalty for Logan Young paying memphis recruits. The NCAA said no one at Bama could have known, there was no lack of institutional control and the NCAA labeled Young as "rogue". They still expected Bama to have stopped it. yes they expect you to monitor the world.
Because you "didn't know" means nothing. In their eyes you are supposed to know.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:56 am to Marktastic86
quote:
You can't offer a kid a ready-made deal to get them to go to your school.
Bammer, were you able to keep a straight face while typing this?
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:57 am to BigSneezy
quote:I agree the issue is muddled. But, the thing many aren't grasping is that NCAA (or SEC) rules apply to "Universities" ... not athletes & not boosters.
But it’s not as easy as that. Unfortunately.
Universities are voluntary members of the NCAA and their respective conferences. They have agreed to follow rules set by those organizations. This includes regulating booster participation in recruiting. If they break a rule, they have agreed to comply with penalties. They have the option to ignore the penalty, but there are consequences to that too.
A&M has now publicly been "outed" re: booster involvement in recruting & NIL incentives. As such, they can't claim lack of knowledge. It's why they've backed-off this year.
This post was edited on 7/19/22 at 11:59 am
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:58 am to TX Tiger
quote:
bullshite. The 100% intent of NIL was to make legal that which was so rampant it could no longer be hidden.
No. In fact, they specifically say it was NOT that.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 11:58 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
No it isn't. Players are receiving NIL deals all over the spectrum.
Yes it is. Controlling the “who” and the “when” is also controlling a market. It’s not just about “how much”.
The argument will be that controlling what companies (boosters) can talk to and when they can do it (market timing) controls the price of said commodity (player).
This is an antitrust argument and one that is a good one.
I understand the competitive fairness and “rules” goals. I agree with them.
But as it currently is set up the NCAA is in fact, probably in violation of antitrust laws as they currently stand if they enforce their rules regarding this.
Thus we need an exception made for antitrust law made for the NCAA. But honestly I don’t see that passing.
But I hope it does.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News