re: New NIL Guidelines passed

quote:

---

That’s from players, not a member

---

Players for a member institution, which could happen again.

Also, off the top of my head, Oklahoma has sued the ncaa.

quote:

---

The NCAA don’t over ride the courts or the law. There are over a dozen states that passed laws in congress that protects the schools and players from the NCAA. There will be lawsuits coming as soon as the NCAA attempts to punish a school for NIL violations. Hide and watch!!!

---

Exactly. This is a free market people. And yes, some schools are poor. That doesn’t change anything. It’s a free market people.

Sorry you are poor.

quote:

---

This is a free market people.

---

Repeating this over and over isn’t going to change anything.

You’ll still be able to pay players btw, you just won’t be allowed to draw quite such a straight line and someone (probably A&M) Will get hammered so as to make an example.

quote:

---

I'm not a smart man, but I believe you are referring to current students while others are referring to prospective students.

---

It doesn’t matter. A corporation can pay anyone they choose to pay. Period. And a student athlete can sell his name image rights to whatever corporations he chooses to.

Period. The NCAA can not ever control this no matter if he is signed or not.

The only way they can is if a CONTRACT exists. And once player contracts are here we are the NFL and the “ not for profit status” is gone bye bye.

It’s not changing. Get used to it. If it does change the NCAA will be sued and eventually fold and we will have a new league with player contracts.

It’s coming.

quote:

---

That’s where Aggy fricked up. It probably wouldn’t be a problem if everyone associated with the program wasn’t bragging about it to anyone who’d give you attention, but you people just couldn’t help yourselves.

---

Wrong. You can pay prospective students for THEIR image and likeness. Before they are a student. Just like seven eleven can pay them for working during the summer. It’s a free market. It’s the law buddy. And LAWS trump NCAA rules.

quote:

---

It doesn’t really matter who’s rich or poor. 

---

Easily the dumbest thing ever posted on tRant concerning the NCAA.

Oof.

Same reason LSU basketball was targeted while Kansas and Duke operate with impunity

quote:

---

How so? We weren't the programs on Twitter announcing pay for play for various positions on the field. The collectives are going to have a problem from this, simply because the only businesses that give a crap have boosters involved. But that is why they hired lawyers and went through compliance. Good luck to the NCAA. We'll be a target, but so should numerous schools dumb enough to advertise pay per play in the open

---

Y’all act like our “ boosters” are some bubba in a car dealership. The NCAA won’t push around these corporations, the corporations will sue them. These “boosters” are legitimate, wealthy, corporations that have legal teams and corporate counsel.

Y’all act like it’s just some due slipping someone some cash. Lmao.

quote:

---

Easily the dumbest thing ever posted on tRant concerning the NCAA.

---

Aggy already in full deflection mode. Nice.

quote:

---

It's not retroactive, these rules are just clarification.

But beyond that, why do people think the federal court system is somehow the place where these things are decided? This will never see a court room of any level.

The NCAA is voluntary. If A&M or anyone else doesn't like it, they can just leave.

---

The federal court system is the place to settle it because the NCAA's remaining NIL restrictions might be illegal restraints on trade under federal antitrust law. I say "might" because the NCAA's antitrust violations are historically analyzed by the courts under the Rule of Reason, meaning they may or may not be legal. In this case, we'll see...

In House vs NCAA, DI athletes are suing for NIL damages and for an injunction against the NCAA's remaining NIL restrictions. From the consolidated amended complaint: (House is a combination of three lawsuits)

quote:

---

5. ...Moreover, even under its interim policy, the NCAA has not suspended enforcement of critical aspects of its NIL restraints, including those restraints prohibiting NCAA institutions from compensating student-athletes for use of their NILs, as well as restraints prohibiting NIL compensation from being contingent upon athletic participation or performance, or
enrollment at a particular school. All of Defendants’ NCAA NIL restraints are unreasonable restraints of trade, are unjustified, and should be enjoined...

32. No procompetitive purposes are served by the NCAA’ NIL rules. They all should thus be permanently enjoined, including those aspects of the NIL rules that the NCAA states it will continue to enforce under its interim policy: the rules barring NIL compensation “contingent upon enrollment at a particular school,” based on an athlete’s “athletic participation or performance,” and the rules barring NIL compensation provided by NCAA institutions in exchange for the use of a student-athlete’s name, image or likeness. These are all unjustified and unreasonable restraints on competition in the relevant labor markets...

---

That case survived dismissal last year and is in discovery. Class certification will come this year or next and trial is set for 2024. I've no doubt that other people will sue if the NCAA enforces those rules.

Volunteerism has nothing to do with the application of antitrust law. NCAA athletes are voluntarily so yet they successfully sued the NCAA in White, in O'Bannon and in Alston and likely will again in House. NCAA assistant coaches are voluntarily so but they once successfully sued the NCAA for capping their compensation. (Law vs NCAA.) Oklahoma and Georgia are voluntary members of the NCAA but they successfully sued the association for their TV rights. (Oklahoma Board of Regents vs NCAA.) Those were all federal antitrust cases.