Started By
Message
The NIL Ruling has nothing to do with the portal. The SCOTUS did not rule on the Portal.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:06 am
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:06 am
These are 2 different topics.
- NIL is DONE, but that does not mean there can not be tweaks and changes to the deals that stabilizes a roster.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTAL WHICH THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON!
The portal rules can be set to minimize and protect players. Example, You get 2 weeks to transfer and that is it. It's after Summer work outs and before the start of the season.
- NIL is DONE, but that does not mean there can not be tweaks and changes to the deals that stabilizes a roster.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTAL WHICH THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON!
The portal rules can be set to minimize and protect players. Example, You get 2 weeks to transfer and that is it. It's after Summer work outs and before the start of the season.
12
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:06 am to Jjdoc
Thank you for clarifying!
People seemed to be lumping it all in together.
They can do something about the portal.
People seemed to be lumping it all in together.
They can do something about the portal.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 10:07 am
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:06 am to Jjdoc
And here I thought ole piss folks were the ones who did the lawyerin
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:07 am to Jjdoc
quote:Does the NCAA even want to change the portal?
Jjdoc
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 10:09 am
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:11 am to RT1941
quote:
Does the NCAA even want to change the portal?
I would imagine after 2 seasons of this, the pressure will be there for change.
Who controls the NCAA?
The last thing the NCAA wants is to be left out. Super Conferences will end them if they don't catch up!
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:29 am to Jjdoc
quote:
The portal rules can be set to minimize and protect players.
Restrictive portal rules aren't about protecting players. They're about protecting control-freak coaches who leave at the drop of a hat.
Windows, sure. But no reason to get more restrictive than that. If the coach can leave whenever, the player should be able to as well.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:35 am to Jjdoc
quote:
The SCOTUS
Jjdoc, have you done any research on Johnson v. NCAA, a case brought by college athletes in which they say that they should be qualified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
A loss in this case will essentially end college athletics as we know it.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 11:02 am to Jjdoc
Honestly the portal doesn't matter. People confuse that with the impact of the free transfers. All the portal does is make transfer conversations happen in "public" rather than behind the scenes like they did before.
The wild transfers aren't because of that... they're due to players not having to sit out a year when they transfer anymore.
The problem with NIL on the other hand is that it's not being used as intended. The intention of NIL was that players could get rewarded due to their fame through endorsements. The thought is that someone like Pepsi or McDonalds would sign Caleb Williams to an endorsement because he's Caleb Williams... not because he's playing for Oklahoma or USC.
Instead it's morphed into a thing where it's also being used to buy players. Come to this school and we'll give you hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was never the intention.
I think that can be corrected... so that the contracts offered to players are binding when offered and not tied to where you attend school. So if a car dealership in College Station offers a player 100,000 dollar endorsement deal... he still can accept that offer even if he winds up playing for Southern Cal or Michigan... and the business offering it is on the hook even though the player isn't playing on the local team.
NIL shouldn't be allowed to be used to bring players in... with a huge payout. It should be payments because the businesses want that player to endorse their product. If that business really wants a player on the local team... they should hire a player already on the team who's likely to stay for the deal... not a prospect.
The wild transfers aren't because of that... they're due to players not having to sit out a year when they transfer anymore.
The problem with NIL on the other hand is that it's not being used as intended. The intention of NIL was that players could get rewarded due to their fame through endorsements. The thought is that someone like Pepsi or McDonalds would sign Caleb Williams to an endorsement because he's Caleb Williams... not because he's playing for Oklahoma or USC.
Instead it's morphed into a thing where it's also being used to buy players. Come to this school and we'll give you hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was never the intention.
I think that can be corrected... so that the contracts offered to players are binding when offered and not tied to where you attend school. So if a car dealership in College Station offers a player 100,000 dollar endorsement deal... he still can accept that offer even if he winds up playing for Southern Cal or Michigan... and the business offering it is on the hook even though the player isn't playing on the local team.
NIL shouldn't be allowed to be used to bring players in... with a huge payout. It should be payments because the businesses want that player to endorse their product. If that business really wants a player on the local team... they should hire a player already on the team who's likely to stay for the deal... not a prospect.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 1:13 pm to NaturalStateReb
quote:
Restrictive portal rules aren't about protecting players. They're about protecting control-freak coaches who leave at the drop of a hat.
2 sides to every coin. They also get fired at the drop of a hat at any point during the season.
quote:
Windows, sure. But no reason to get more restrictive than that. If the coach can leave whenever, the player should be able to as well.
There is plenty of need to get restrictive.
For example, a NIL collective approaches your starting QB or RB or WR. They say "we are going to more than double what they are giving you. maybe triple. JUST DON'T GET HURT!"
That play is now playing it safe and not giving it his all. After all, going to another place and getting a massive pay raise depends on me being healthy.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 1:16 pm to paperwasp
quote:
Jjdoc, have you done any research on Johnson v. NCAA, a case brought by college athletes in which they say that they should be qualified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
A loss in this case will essentially end college athletics as we know it.
Yes. I saw that. Always unforeseen things come out of these cases.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 1:22 pm to Jjdoc
The NIL only applies to the athletes, it does not apply to the boosters.
The existing rules would prevent boosters from offering players NIL deals. They are only able to do it if they show market value for what is being done.
That is already in the rules, and the supreme court ruling doesn't change that at all.
What has to be done however is the NCAA has to actually enforce those rules. At this point I'm no longer sure if they will. When it started out, it was just A&M. But then other schools saw what A&M did and started to copy it.
It was looking at the start like they were going to do something, but it's kind of went silent and as I mentioned above, the problem is getting worse. I'm still hoping they act, but it looks worse and worse by the day.
The existing rules would prevent boosters from offering players NIL deals. They are only able to do it if they show market value for what is being done.
That is already in the rules, and the supreme court ruling doesn't change that at all.
What has to be done however is the NCAA has to actually enforce those rules. At this point I'm no longer sure if they will. When it started out, it was just A&M. But then other schools saw what A&M did and started to copy it.
It was looking at the start like they were going to do something, but it's kind of went silent and as I mentioned above, the problem is getting worse. I'm still hoping they act, but it looks worse and worse by the day.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 1:23 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Read the summaries with quotes from Kavanaugh's opinion. His assertion is that the NCAA doesn't have a right to restrict player pay and he compares the NCAA to other employers. He basically goes on to state that the NCAA's business model relying on restricting players is not an excuse. He doesn't care that you're worried about your football team's season. This is a labor protection issue. He literally compared the NCAA to colluding restaurants or something I can't remember specifically what.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTAL WHICH THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON!
Not difficult to see how the SC would probably rule about not allowing transfers if it got there.
The NCAA didn't start giving the free transfer out of the goodness of its heart. They were being sued left and right. I saw a quote where some lawyer who handles the cases was too full up on work and couldn't take new ones.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 12/7/22 at 1:25 pm to NaturalStateReb
and universities have buy out clauses in most college coaches contracts that prevent that very thing or at least protect the Ath dept and the univ interest. No One is protecting them from players being enticed to leave for NIL deals or leave to jump on another schools team. The NFL, A PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE, has free agent rules that prevent tampering, enticement, and subsidizes teams who lose players and coaches with draft pics to offset the hit.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 1:29 pm to JRtiger75
quote:OK start paying them with negotiated contracts and buyout clauses... these aren't employees
and universities have buy out clauses in most college coaches contracts that prevent that very thing or at least protect the Ath dept and the univ interest.
quote:Protection from what exactly? Losing a non-professional football game? There are no damages to be protected from. This is incredibly hard to argue and the NCAA's lawyer got blasted in the SC - the ruling was unanimous which we all know is pretty overwhelming - in normal business in the US you could not do what the NCAA does because it violates antitrust laws
No One is protecting them from players being enticed to leave for NIL deals or leave to jump on another schools team.
quote:Then I guess it's time to create a NCAA football players union and have real negotiations. The schools will likely end up paying about 50% of revenue out to players so get ready for that outcome.
The NFL, A PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE, has free agent rules that prevent tampering, enticement, and subsidizes teams who lose players and coaches with draft pics to offset the hit.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:06 pm to ALhunter
Precisely. It’s irrelevant how many fans bitch on message boards about how nobody is looking after their interests when they’re the ones who’ve paid the bills for generations, and about the traditions of the sport being destroyed. (I’m not unsympathetic to those arguments, mind you.)
If a transfer case gets to the Supremes, I’ll wager my IRA that it will be a 9-0 slam dunk for athletes and Congress will do nothing to change it.
This is what it is, we either let it sort itself out and move forward on this new landscape or stop watching.
If a transfer case gets to the Supremes, I’ll wager my IRA that it will be a 9-0 slam dunk for athletes and Congress will do nothing to change it.
This is what it is, we either let it sort itself out and move forward on this new landscape or stop watching.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:12 pm to InkStainedWretch
quote:
If a transfer case gets to the Supremes, I’ll wager my IRA that it will be a 9-0 slam dunk for athletes and Congress will do nothing to change it.
I'd take that bet.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:14 pm to Jjdoc
They can do something about it all. They have chosen not to.
There are always work-arounds, but once the courts ruled against them, the NCAA just quit.
There are always work-arounds, but once the courts ruled against them, the NCAA just quit.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:15 pm to DawginSC
quote:
I think that can be corrected... so that the contracts offered to players are binding when offered and not tied to where you attend school. So if a car dealership in College Station offers a player 100,000 dollar endorsement deal... he still can accept that offer even if he winds up playing for Southern Cal or Michigan... and the business offering it is on the hook even though the player isn't playing on the local team.
So, a 5 star recruit goes into a commitment to aTm and gets a new $100k truck. Then decommits and goes to OU driving his new truck. The charm of your idea is he milked a another schools booster/vendor for $100k so now the next 5 star to be kicking the tires at aTm isn’t offered a new truck because they gave 5 trucks away to players on other teams and are trucked out.
One could use your idea to milk the cow with top recruits and leave no milk for those who might actually stay. But now with no milk left you lose out on future top recruits.
In a way your idea might help slow down NIL deals as money men are reluctant to pay money to someone who may never play a down for their school
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:15 pm to 3down10
quote:
The NIL only applies to the athletes, it does not apply to the boosters.
Boosters don't earn NIL /s
quote:
The existing rules would prevent boosters from offering players NIL deals. They are only able to do it if they show market value for what is being done.
No. The Supreme Court says that the player owns his name, image, and likeness. A booster can negotiate use and there is nothing the university can do to stop it. It is not the university's purview to stop.
The most common form of booster funded NIL is through the collectives. Many teams have players in different collectives (more than one per school).
I don't believe that legislature or the ncaa or the universities can do anything about NIL other than the universities to continue to report it.
That means... the transfer SOPs are on the table to help college football moving forward.
I suggest the mandatory redshirt for undergrads. There is no downside except for the booster who wants a year 1 return on the NIL investment on the field. And I'm not going to shed a tear for that individual.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 2:19 pm to OU Guy
quote:
So, a 5 star recruit goes into a commitment to aTm and gets a new $100k truck. Then decimmitts and goes to OU driving his new truck. The charm of your idea is he milked a booster for $100k so now the next 5 star to be kicking the wheels at aTm isn’t offered a new truck because they gave 5 trucks away to players on other teams and are trucked out.
You could use your idea to milk the cow with top recruits and leave no milk for those who might actually stay. But now with no milk left you lose out on future top recruits.
In a way your idea might help slow down NIL deals as money men are reluctant to pay money to someone who may never play a down for their school
This is actually how NIL is supposed to be structured, today.
It cannot be "pay for play".
But boosters have money and can find loopholes to get kids to sign for that year commitment (maybe the first check isn't until 2 weeks from classes starting etc with a backout clause built in).
With this amount of money, there won't be any legislation or rule that a booster with resources can't skirt around
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News