re: NCAA commissions task force to separate big money boosters from NIL deals

quote:

---

Remember, NCAA already lost this battle at the Supreme Court level.

---

Wrong. Once again there are no restrictions being played on the students.

From the article:
Thus far, the NCAA has avoided enforcement, perhaps because of the threat of legal challenges. But things are at a boiling point, and leaders feel they have lost control. They are now willing to take a risk they weren’t last summer, when the organization tabled a permanent policy governing NIL after the loss in the Supreme Court-Alston case. A group of athletic directors spent two years drafting the policy to see it abandoned at the last minute. Several officials have expressed regret in the NCAA’s decision to eschew the policy.

Now several conference presidents, school AD's and leaders are part of the Transformation Committee and the NCAA has tasked them with completing an entirely new rulebook by August 2022.

quote:

---

Schools can't be involved in NIL now can they?

And here's a question.... Once a business or company i.e. "Pleasant Hill Nissan" engages in an NIL contract with a student-athlete at a school and pays the athlete for their NIL, are the members of that company then considered "boosters" of that program?

---

Interesting question.

I was thinking about this last night. Because if you give money to support the program, you are deemed a booster, and you are deemed a booster for life.

My end guess was that because the money is going directly to the players rather than the schools, it wasn't the same. The other thing is that it's not a donation. So for example, Nike gives Alabama and other schools money for wearing their stuff, but they aren't considered boosters since it's not a donation.

quote:

---

Interesting question.

I was thinking about this last night. Because if you give money to support the program, you are deemed a booster, and you are deemed a booster for life.

My end guess was that because the money is going directly to the players rather than the schools, it wasn't the same. The other thing is that it's not a donation. So for example, Nike gives Alabama and other schools money for wearing their stuff, but they aren't considered boosters since it's not a donation.

---

So, in other words, there is no such thing as a booster anymore. The term "booster" is archaic and no longer applies.

In other words, your entire argument is complete bullshite.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

quote:

---

Literally a bunch of bitches crying because you can't outright buy players. You can all go frick yourselves really.

---

Oh, don't be like that.

The word "booster" cannot be reasonably applied under the new NIL framework. You're taking old rules and applying them to new circumstances.

If I want to pay an Aggy player to do an advertisement for my company, you're telling me that the NCAA will not allow it? That shits all over the spirit of the SC ruling. That fundamentally interferes with a student-athlete's ability profit from his NIL.

I will consider any rules or interpretations thereof coupled with your interpretation of the SC ruling. Otherwise, you have done nothing but spit out a bunch of conjecture. Make your case with something other than you opinion.

quote:

---

Interesting question.

---

Indeed, and one I feel the NCAA will not have authority to regulate.

quote:

---

I was thinking about this last night. Because if you give money to support the program, you are deemed a booster, and you are deemed a booster for life.

---

NIL collectives aren't giving support to a program, they are entering contract agreements completely separate from the school. They are contracting directly with the individual student-athlete.

quote:

---

My end guess was that because the money is going directly to the players rather than the schools, it wasn't the same.

---

It can't be considered the same simply because the school has no involvement.

quote:

---

The other thing is that it's not a donation. So for example, Nike gives Alabama and other schools money for wearing their stuff, but they aren't considered boosters since it's not a donation.

---

Nike doesn't give money to schools, they contract directly with schools and pay them for using their product.

NIL collectives won't be donating to the schools and they won't be paying the schools. IMO, NIL collectives are a separate entities operating separately from the schools and will not be considered "boosters" according to NCAA's definition.


Schools should serve no purpose to an NIL collective other than record keeping for their student-athletes NIL contracts.

quote:

---

Oh, don't be like that.

The word "booster" cannot be reasonably applied under the new NIL framework. You're taking old rules and applying them to new circumstances.

If I want to pay an Aggy player to do an advertisement for my company, you're telling me that the NCAA will not allow it? That shits all over the spirit of the SC ruling. That fundamentally interferes with a student-athlete's ability profit from his NIL.

I will consider any rules or interpretations thereof coupled with your interpretation of the SC ruling. Otherwise, you have done nothing but spit out a bunch of conjecture. Make your case with something other than you opinion.

---

Perhaps I decide to hold a 7 on 7 camp in my home town and I engage in a contract directly with Bryce Young, I agree to pay him for working with the QB's/WR's as well as sit for a photo op for my marketing brochures, etc. We file the fully executed contract agreement through UA's NIL protocols. So what authority does the NCAA have in the mutual contract I have with Bryce?

Disclosure: I'm and Alabama graduate, a decades long season ticket holder, I donate annually to the business college AND I currently have a child in graduate school at Alabama.

quote:

---

Perhaps I decide to hold a 7 on 7 camp in my home town and I engage in a contract directly with Bryce Young, I agree to pay him for working with the QB's/WR's as well as sit for a photo op for my marketing brochures, etc. We file the fully executed contract agreement through UA's NIL protocols. So what authority does the NCAA have in the mutual contract I have with Bryce?

---

3and10 would have you believe that the NCAA would have authority to prevent such a contract by giving Alabama the death penalty or other sanctions.

It is entirely contrary to the whole purpose of the Supreme Court's ruling. It frustrates the intent.

There is VERY LITTLE chance that an Aggy would be interested in paying NIL for a fricking longhorn or any other non-Aggy athlete. That "non-booster" requirement means the SC ruling did absolutely NOTHING.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all. I can see A&M making it a tradition and doing it on the 50 between quarters.

quote:

---

Oh, don't be like that.

The word "booster" cannot be reasonably applied under the new NIL framework. You're taking old rules and applying them to new circumstances.

---

Ok, then why is Nike not already considered a booster for all the schools they pay?

Because there is an obvious difference in being a donator of the school and doing business with the school.

quote:

---

If I want to pay an Aggy player to do an advertisement for my company, you're telling me that the NCAA will not allow it? That shits all over the spirit of the SC ruling. That fundamentally interferes with a student-athlete's ability profit from his NIL.

---

That's right, you are not allowed to do that. The supreme court ruling had NOTHING to do with what you are allowed to do. It only said that the players are allowed to earn NIL deals. If you are not a player, then the supreme court ruling did not apply to you.

Because legally there is nothing that would prevent you from doing an NIL deal. Your restriction is applied by Texas A&M, and A&M will voluntarily be subject to penalties for your actions. At which point, you would be banned from all future A&M events etc.

quote:

---

I will consider any rules or interpretations thereof coupled with your interpretation of the SC ruling. Otherwise, you have done nothing but spit out a bunch of conjecture. Make your case with something other than you opinion.

---

In the end, you're just upset because you want people to be able to use the NIL to buy players and you want to believe it's ok. Cry more.