Started By
Message
re: Tennessee AD Danny White releases statement, goes HAM on NCAA
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:49 pm to AwgustaDawg
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:49 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
The issue will be if the contract has any language in it that states the player has to play or sign with UT for the contract to be valid. It may not have any such language, if it exists, but it'd be a damned foolish thing to do if there is any money involved more than the cost of the flight.
It doesn’t. They have the best lawyers in the business.
1
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:51 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
The NCAA is trying to use old rules that have been in place and adapt them to the current situation to help deal/slow down NIL. They can not control NIL as long as they cannot connect the dots with the university.
This is the crux of the situation and it is exactly what about 99% of college football fans have been clamoring for....someone needs to do something about the current situation in CFB, namely NIL and the Portal. There is only one entity who can do something about it currently, the NCAA. No one is technically forced to be a NCAA school...practically you can't not be a member but technically it is a voluntary decision based on your agreeing to rules and enforcement decisions. That may not be illegal, who knows.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:51 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
I am not a lawyer by any stretch but if the booster flew the recruit to Tennessee
Well, I'm a 'booster', as is anyone who has every donated.
And yes, I can fly NICO anywhere I want to fly him, on my own dime.
Again, you all are thinking like it's still pre-NIL.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:51 pm to hooperj75
quote:
The NCAA is trying to redefine the collective itself (Spyre) as a booster, thus Nico being flown in on a booster private jet. Spyre is a collective, not a booster. That is what UT is arguing.
Exactly. In which case every collective would have to be shut down.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:52 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
they are trying to say a booster enticed Nico Iamaleava to play for UT
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:52 pm to hooperj75
quote:
The NCAA is trying to redefine the collective itself (Spyre) as a booster, thus Nico being flown in on a booster private jet. Spyre is a collective, not a booster.
This I agree with as I think the NCAA knows they have to be careful how they proceed but want to make a big statement. The only way for this to happen is by making the collective an arm of the boosters to establish grounds for illegal recruiting of Nico.
UT just happened to be in their crosshairs as I mentioned earlier. Either way however this ends will set a precedent moving forward.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:53 pm to AwgustaDawg
The NCAA will NEVER be able to reel in NIL. They can allow official pay for play by making athletes employees.
HOWEVER, NIL will always exist on top of that and the richest schools will still be able to use that to get players to come to their school on top of what they get as employees.
HOWEVER, NIL will always exist on top of that and the richest schools will still be able to use that to get players to come to their school on top of what they get as employees.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:54 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Did he meet with vol coaches on his little visit?
Aha, moving the goalposts.
So NOW, since you realize that you're wrong about the flight, you're hoping beyond hope that he met with coaches.
lmao, the fear is palpable.
Get used to it. You're facing NICO for the next 2-3 years.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:54 pm to LewEvansFan
quote:
Spyre doesn’t meet with coaches or UT, dumbfrick.
Did the player, on this spyre visit, meet with the coaches on campus? Thats the question you failed to answer. Wonder why?
The vol boosters don’t have to set that up for a violation to occur.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:55 pm to paperwasp
quote:
It's going to be an absolute disaster, and not to be hyperbolic, it will end the sport, IMO.
There are so many things to consider about official employment when it comes to thousands of athletes on campus, I just can't see many programs having the wherewithal to go through with it.
At that point it's essentially an NFL G League, with no associated subsidy. (There would be no point for them to invest, because they're already getting player development for free.)
I agree wholeheartedly. I also fully understand how it is a BAD look in todays environment to have coaches, mostly white, making millions of dollars a year, schools making hundreds of millions and the people driving that revenue, a sizeable number who are not white, getting a seat in a classroom that doesn't cost the university a red penny (on paper it costs the AD but in reality adding one more desk is virtually free). Its a damned bad look in an industry which promotes itself as being progressive. That part of it is going to come to the surface sooner than later...it always does.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:56 pm to hooperj75
quote:
Spyre is a collective, not a booster. That is what UT is arguing.
We will see if this argument works, but A booster is a booster irregardless of his association as a leader within a collective
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:56 pm to djsdawg
quote:
The vol boosters don’t have to set that up for a violation to occur.
Wrong. Regardless of what delusion you have, that isn’t the crux of the issue. The NCAA is trying to say a “booster” is providing pay for play. Not that they helped fly him to campus.
If that’s all it was they’d pay back the flight cost and move on.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:57 pm to paperwasp
quote:
I’ve had many inquiries, and I want those in the college athletics community to hear directly from me.
Ross Bjork over there taking notes
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:57 pm to djsdawg
quote:
We will see if this argument works, but A booster is a booster irregardless of his association as a leader within a collective
They tried to retroactively claim collectives were boosters, so yes, this argument works.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:57 pm to djsdawg
quote:
but A booster is a booster irregardless
What the hell is 'irregardless'?
A collective is a collective "irregardless" (lmao) of their association with a booster.
Dumbass, a collective can simply be a bunch of boosters.
Wait, do you think that 'boosters' are employees of the university?
Anyone can pay a player for NIL activities. Even you, if you had a job and weren't living in Mom's basement.
This post was edited on 2/1/24 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:58 pm to djsdawg
Miami has a collective funded by one Booster but yet they are ok? What is the difference?
Posted on 2/1/24 at 2:58 pm to DawginSC
quote:
The NCAA doesn't care about state laws. The states handle legal claims.
All that the NCAA can do is enforce their rules through their enforcement procedures.
And there is only really one rule that is being obviously broken. NIL deals cannot be tied to playing for a particular school. They are endorsement deals, not payment for playing football.
I'm all for the NCAA coming down hard on enforcing that rule. I think doing so fixes the NIL mess.
You are not alone, I would posit about 99% of CFB fans have, at some point in the last few years, said or thought someone ought to be doing something about NIL. Well here we are, someone is indeed trying to do something. It ain't surprising that when the cat gets its tail under the rocking he chair he screams. Unfortunate for the cat of course but scream it will while the rocking chair could not care less...
Posted on 2/1/24 at 3:01 pm to hooperj75
quote:
Miami has a collective funded by one Booster but yet they are ok? What is the difference?
Did the players visit the campus and meet with coaches on his dime?
I wouldn’t assume it’s okay. Clocks ticking on them.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 3:01 pm to LewEvansFan
To me, the question should be:
If the player transfers to a nearby school or quits football entirely, will they still be able to legally complete the contract and be paid.
If the answer to that is "no", the NCAA has the responsibility to punish the school for breaking the "pay to play" rule for NIL. NIL deals are required to be disclosed by the player to the school and the school is required to suspend a player who signs a NIL deal in violation of NCAA rules (and suspend them if they are found to have entered a deal they did not disclose).
If the school fails to do this, they should be punished for it.
I don't see any of this as bad. As soon as these contracts get guaranteed even if the player transfers, those contracts will stop being given to players and pay to play will go away. Contracts will only be given to guys who are on the team, not for player to join the team. They won't be multi-year either. That's where NIL needs to get to, and we should all be onboard with the NCAA moving in that direction.
If the player transfers to a nearby school or quits football entirely, will they still be able to legally complete the contract and be paid.
If the answer to that is "no", the NCAA has the responsibility to punish the school for breaking the "pay to play" rule for NIL. NIL deals are required to be disclosed by the player to the school and the school is required to suspend a player who signs a NIL deal in violation of NCAA rules (and suspend them if they are found to have entered a deal they did not disclose).
If the school fails to do this, they should be punished for it.
I don't see any of this as bad. As soon as these contracts get guaranteed even if the player transfers, those contracts will stop being given to players and pay to play will go away. Contracts will only be given to guys who are on the team, not for player to join the team. They won't be multi-year either. That's where NIL needs to get to, and we should all be onboard with the NCAA moving in that direction.
Page 5 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News