Started By
Message
re: NCAA commissions task force to separate big money boosters from NIL deals
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:31 pm to PeleofAnalytics
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:31 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:NCAA is going to put itself out of business. No way they can win a legal argument on this subject
Seeing how the courts have ruled, can't see this bylaw standing up.
1
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:32 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
Seeing how the courts have ruled, can't see this bylaw standing up.
Because this is a restriction on boosters, not the players.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:34 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
There's no way to stop this without some kind of CBA type of agreement... And even then you will never really be able to stop recruiting tactics behind NIL lure.
Verifying.
Any and all methods of NIL containment would rightfully be considered an unworthy investment. The system of laws in place do not provide enough power to sustain a confrontation of this caliber.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:34 pm to Stidham8
quote:
The Supreme Court shot this down. Hoping it goes away is a pipe dream.
"The NCAA has lost an additional federal court battle on name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation for student-athletes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision confirming the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the NCAA’s limitation on education-related benefits for student-athletes violates federal antitrust laws."
"The class action lawsuit, filed in June 2020 on behalf of Arizona State University swimmer Grant House and Oregon women’s basketball player Sedona Prince, will continue. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the NCAA from using any bylaws or rules to allow their college and university members to “restrict the amount of name, image, and likeness compensation available” to athletes. It challenges rules prohibiting athletes from being paid for sponsorships or endorsements, being paid for social media influencer sponsorships and using their NIL to promote their own businesses, along with rules that prohibit them from sharing in television revenue made by schools and conferences through group licensing."
NCAA loses additional Student-Athlete Compensation Court Case
Yeah, we all know NIL is allowed now. Not sure why you are posting this. There is no restriction on the amount they can make.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:36 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Bama will be fine, since they can go back to paying players the old way.
You mean Like Will Wade was doing.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:39 pm to TouchdownTony
I'm pretty sure that Saban isn't dumb enough to be paying players out of his personal bank account
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:42 pm to ColoradoAg
Wanna bet. I know A&M thinks they are gonna be able to continue to buy players but I wouldn’t count on that.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:43 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
I'm pretty sure that Saban isn't dumb enough to be paying players out of his personal bank account
Verifying.
Using evidence compiled from former Louisiana State University Basketball coach Will Wade, this has shown to be detrimental in achieving the desired outcome of secrecy and in turn, success.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:43 pm to 3down10
quote:
Yeah, we all know NIL is allowed now. Not sure why you are posting this. There is no restriction on the amount they can make.
You do realize that anything the NCAA tries to pass will be immediately met with lawsuits and it will end up nowhere? The Supreme Court isn't making any sort of amendment to their ruling so that boosters can't pay players.
And your own article has quotes that spells out they don't think it will work. . .
"Any NCAA enforcement will challenge state NIL laws and risk a bevy of lawsuits from the wealthy collectives and individual donors, experts say"
“Either you let everyone do it or you enforce the rule,” Florida-based sports attorney Darren Heitner says. “In essence, what’s happening or will happen is those who are willing to violate the rule will be rewarded if nothing is done about it. Don’t have a rule if you’re not willing to enforce it. This isn’t a matter of them not being able to do something. But will it further open itself up to more litigation, litigation it will probably lose?”
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:45 pm to 3down10
quote:
The NCAA has lost an additional federal court battle on name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation for student-athletes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision confirming the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the NCAA’s limitation on education-related benefits for student-athletes violates federal antitrust laws."
I always thought this was the biggest cop out ever. These are not employees of companies therefore they are not subject to the Sherman anti trust act. This was done to stop the Carnegies from colluding with businesses to monopolize a certain industry. It has NOTHING to do with intercollegiate athletics which is by definition "amateurism" and again, not subject to anti trust laws as commerce and trade is not taking place.
The Supreme court needs to stay out of this and worry about things like oh...Roe v Wade.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:48 pm to ColoradoAg
A&M is so screwed, enjoy it while it last...Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:49 pm to Sleepy_Tiger
We are shaking to be certain
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:49 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
How do they distinguish between a collective and a legitimate organization?
Same way they did it before……they didn’t.
There are think tanks figuring out how to circumvent all the rules just like before.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:05 pm to 3down10
quote:
Because this is a restriction on boosters, not the players.
No sure that is where the problem lies. I don't think the courts like the NCAA dictating the terms, and indirectly limiting, the amount of money the kids are allowed to make. This rule probably would indirectly limit how much they make.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:06 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
This is why collectives hired legal teams and compliance officials. Will be interesting to watch
What dumbasses like you apparently still don’t understand is tht the vast majority will demand regulation because otherwise college football won’t survive long term. You 8&4feit fans don’t even care as long as you can buy a title before it’s over.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:09 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
This rule probably would indirectly limit how much they make.
It would be no different than regulations against tampering in professional leagues. Salary caps directly limit how much players can make too, so not sure what your angle is here
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:10 pm to Stidham8
quote:
You do realize that anything the NCAA tries to pass will be immediately met with lawsuits and it will end up nowhere? The Supreme Court isn't making any sort of amendment to their ruling so that boosters can't pay players.
And your own article has quotes that spells out they don't think it will work. . .
"Any NCAA enforcement will challenge state NIL laws and risk a bevy of lawsuits from the wealthy collectives and individual donors, experts say"
“Either you let everyone do it or you enforce the rule,” Florida-based sports attorney Darren Heitner says. “In essence, what’s happening or will happen is those who are willing to violate the rule will be rewarded if nothing is done about it. Don’t have a rule if you’re not willing to enforce it. This isn’t a matter of them not being able to do something. But will it further open itself up to more litigation, litigation it will probably lose?”
The rules in the article already exist. So you are obviously wrong.
As it says, the taskforce is merely to "Clarify" that those are the rules.
Furthermore, the NCAA supreme court ruling really doesn't matter here. These are restrictions on the schools(the boosters are considered extensions of the schools), not the athletes. In no manner does this rule restrict any athlete from taking NIL deals presented to them. It does however restrict boosters from doing them.
Lawyers say lawyer shite. He gets paid either way. All I read was "Yeah, I'm ready to get paid to make a lawsuit".
The NCAA won't lose this in court. It's not the same thing as the previous ruling. The schools have every right to restrict their boosters.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:12 pm to lsufball19
quote:
It would be no different than regulations against tampering in professional leagues. Salary caps directly limit how much players can make too, so not sure what your angle is here
But does that salary cap only limit what players can be paid directly from the team? Or does it limit what a player himself can make with NIL?
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:12 pm to ColoradoAg
That’s the issue people have. It’s not NiL it’s the idea that the richest schools are just buying the best recruits. I still say the answer is that there needs to be a monetary divide in college football creating divisions. Then figure an equitable income for every player provided by school. NIl deals are separate and cannot come from school boosters. Bryant bank can’t pay Bryce Young however no one should limit his ability to make money off of his heisman commercials or any other national brand not tied to the university.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:14 pm to DolphinDaddy
quote:
No one saw this coming right? The NCAA allowing players to be paid turned out a failure?
For some reason the NCAA believes schools would actually take the rule at face value instead of finding exploits, which given the history of college recruitment just seems tone deaf
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News