Started By
Message
re: The problem isn’t NIL. The problem is no forced player commitment to teams
Posted on 1/11/25 at 11:37 am to Diego Ricardo
Posted on 1/11/25 at 11:37 am to Diego Ricardo
Diego you are one poster who both on this board and the Bama board sees both the forest and the trees. And that is rare these days. 
1
Posted on 1/11/25 at 11:38 am to theunknownknight
It didn’t seem to be a problem for Ohio State.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:02 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
Because they don't have employment contracts that prohibit this. Most professional sports do
Yup. Not sure if this was said already but also read somewhere that a federal judge recently ruled favorably on an initial proposal to limit NIL per team to 23M.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:06 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
The problem is no forced player commitment to teams
As long as you also advocate for forced school commitment to players then I'm ok with your proposal.
So the players promises to play all years at school and the school promises a roster spot as well as guaranteed playing time in return.
Fair enough.
I'm not sure the coaches and fans will like it but im fine with it. All players get at least minimum snaps on the field in games and can't be processed. Players can't leave.
Win win.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:17 pm to NickPapageorgio
The problem is NIL.
And there wasn’t an illusion. Players agreed to play for one school for tuition, room & board, a degree, and maybe something under the table.
In exchange, those who didn’t make the NFL (and that’s over 90% of football players), got an education and a fighting chance to get a good job.
My question is:
When do the class action lawsuits start against public schools for students on academic scholarships not having the right to negotiate their award packages?
And there wasn’t an illusion. Players agreed to play for one school for tuition, room & board, a degree, and maybe something under the table.
In exchange, those who didn’t make the NFL (and that’s over 90% of football players), got an education and a fighting chance to get a good job.
My question is:
When do the class action lawsuits start against public schools for students on academic scholarships not having the right to negotiate their award packages?
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:26 pm to bluestem75
NIL is beyond anyone's control.
9-0 supreme court ruling.
Academic scholarship students can already sign NIL deals and have NEVER been prohibited from taking money from people.
Only athletes were being denied their constitutional right to earning money off their name, image or likeness.
Nike can sign NIL deal with any dude on Academic scholarship at Harvard whenever they want to do so......and could 25 years ago. They just choose not to for obvious reasons.
Some of you are completely clueless as to what NIL even is.
9-0 supreme court ruling.
Academic scholarship students can already sign NIL deals and have NEVER been prohibited from taking money from people.
Only athletes were being denied their constitutional right to earning money off their name, image or likeness.
Nike can sign NIL deal with any dude on Academic scholarship at Harvard whenever they want to do so......and could 25 years ago. They just choose not to for obvious reasons.
Some of you are completely clueless as to what NIL even is.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:47 pm to bluestem75
quote:
And there wasn’t an illusion. Players agreed to play for one school for tuition, room & board, a degree, and maybe something under the table. In exchange, those who didn’t make the NFL (and that’s over 90% of football players), got an education and a fighting chance to get a good job.
That isn’t enough anymore. There is nothing earthly, including college football, that is eternal or set in stone forever, unchanging.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:50 pm to bluestem75
quote:
When do the class action lawsuits start against public schools for students on academic scholarships not having the right to negotiate their award packages?
You can’t selectively pull out the “they ought to be the same as other students” card when it suits your purposes. It’s not an equal situation and as another poster just stated, regular students already can do the same things. Athletes just couldn’t because of the illusion that they were amateurs.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:51 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Pay the players. Who cares? It’s always been done.
But if they are getting paid like the “real world” then they need to honor contracts like the real world
Seems universally agreeable.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:52 pm to NickPapageorgio
They’re butt hurt because they think fans are the most important people in the equation … don’t you know, they pay the bills … and what they say about how this should be is what should go, but nobody is listening to them and nobody is going to listen to them. Because they want to preserve the illusion.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 12:53 pm to theunknownknight
you're absolutely right. what we have in college would be the NFL with rookie free agency and it would kill the NFL just like it's killing college football. in the NFL the team has you for four years with an option to extend you to five before a player has free agency.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:27 pm to theunknownknight
a big part of fixing it would be to restoring the sitting out year. ryan mallett transferred from michigan after his freshman but he still had to sit out a year.
immediate eligibility is a horrible idea.
immediate eligibility is a horrible idea.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:30 pm to pankReb
quote:
Sure we do. I see ole Miss players all the time tagged in endorsements.
Of course.
Put someone's name on a social media post, definitely worth $8M. Not pay for play, we got their name on a post! :wink wink:
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:31 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
They promote players being mercenaries
This statement is a combination of stupid and malicious. The problem is not the selfishness of the players, it is the selfishness of the boosters, admins, and coaches that put CFB in this ridiculous situation. Get your righteous indignation pointed in the right direction.
Your idea of requiring the players to stay two years, you know whom would be the first to violate that rule……? A rich booster trying to tempt a player to switch schools.
How about any requirements or rules we place on players, put those same rules on coaches, university ADs, etc….See how fast they start squealing.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:32 pm to dickkellog
quote:
a big part of fixing it would be to restoring the sitting out year
Can't restrict anything like that without a contract. Any interference with a person's right to make money will get killed in court.
That's why contracts matter. Both party agreeing to the terms means you can set the terms as you wish, within legal limits.
This post was edited on 1/11/25 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:45 pm to tBrand
No they don't change jobs in the real world all the time.
In the private sector there are contracts and non compete clauses.
A scholarship is not a property right. Unlimited free agency is going to really hurt the sport, run off the ethical coaches, and hurt player development as it encourages them to take their ball and go to another school when they can't get their way.
In the private sector there are contracts and non compete clauses.
A scholarship is not a property right. Unlimited free agency is going to really hurt the sport, run off the ethical coaches, and hurt player development as it encourages them to take their ball and go to another school when they can't get their way.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:51 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
But if they are getting paid like the “real world” then they need to honor contracts like the real world.
None of this ... absolutely none ... makes any sense unless you want to bind every head coach, every assistant, and every positional coach to the same standard.
And that's what it comes down you. You want the dopamine hit of "Jimmy Fast Shoes just committed to my favorite semi-pro team grafted onto a college campus !!!".
But then you want to fire Coach Numb Nuts because he just ain't getting it done. Or Coach Great Play Sheet gets to move up.
What it comes down to is all you College Football Fans want Indentured Players. But not Indentured Coaches
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:51 pm to jonnyanony
well that was a NCAA rule and it wouldn't prevent them from getting paid just from playing football. in mallett's case he would have been paid one way or another he had been such a highly regarded high school player.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:54 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
In the private sector there are contracts and non compete clauses.
Absolute bullshite.
Want to know how many Labor Law judges ever enforce one of these "non-compete" clauses, whenever it hits court ?
None. Because if it's under seven figures ? No judge ever tells anyone making "just" $999,999 per year that they can't work.
It doesn't work that way.
Posted on 1/11/25 at 1:57 pm to theunknownknight
They need to put in one free transfer then you have to sit out a year for every transfer after unless you're a grad transfer
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News