Started By
Message
re: You can thank Tennessee later
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:12 pm to captdalton
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:12 pm to captdalton
quote:
They can rule a player ineligible for receiving impermissible benefits from individuals or private organizations. They can also penalize schools for players receiving impermissible benefits from private entities.
Not arbitrarily. And at no point in this is Tennessee accused of wrong doing. I posted the actual guidance the NCAA provided a few posts back and the only way this is a violation is if playing for Tennessee was expressly in the contracts. It’s not.
0
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:13 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Tennessee should stop paying players to play for their school.
What makes you feel they are?
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:15 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
What makes you feel they are?
The fact that it was proven that Pruitt’s staff was paying players and there is so much smoke around the program now.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:15 pm to gypsy2091
quote:
And in ENTERS the Supreme Court ruling and the anti trust case. What the hell power does the NCAA have to violate law and restrict the $$ of these players. Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying my point.
The courts have not, that I know of, ever said that the NCAA can not regulate college athletics. Given that membership is voluntary and based on agreeing to comply by NCAA regulations AND being subjected to NCAA sanctions if guilty of cheating it is conceivable that the courts will indeed maintain the status quo...no one is forced to be a NCAA member, it is voluntary. The courts have said the NCAA could not limit the commerce of a student athlete, as far as I know they have not said that the NCAA could not have academic eligibility standards for participation in a sporting event, for example.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:17 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
Two separate questions. If Nico initiated a second quick side trip without input with the staff then it’s a non issue. If Nico initiated a campus visit and stopped by the coaches offices or initiated an unofficial visit again no problem.
I wouldn’t be so sure about this, but I imagine this is exactly what a vol lawyer on a vol site would lead you to believe. They probably don’t know either.
quote:
no reason to believe they blatantly crossed it
I understand why you hope so, but they are loud mouths, which had led to this investigation, so I would have my doubts.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:24 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
What makes you feel they are?
The fact that a day after it came out that Tennessee was being investigated by the NCAA, the state of Tennessee sued the NCAA to make it acceptable to pay players to play for a school.
Kind of obvious sign there.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 2:41 pm to gypsy2091
quote:
Remind me again how players from the hood afford to fly to and visit many college campuses?
No doubt everybody does it...I just got done doing it and I am ready to do it again, don't tell me you don't do it...
I get it. Everybody speeds on the interstate. Sometimes you can do it for years without getting a ticket, sometimes you can't do it 2 days in a row without getting a ticket.
Tennessee's problems are two fold. They were just investigated and sanctioned by the NCAA for pay for play. While Tennessee was, by all accounts, bending over backwards to provide the NCAA with anything they needed in that case they were also among the most aggressive early implementers of NIL Collectives...I suspect if you research these message boards you will find many UT fans speaking highly of the programs adaption of NIL and being at the forefront of NIL efforts. In essence Tennessee was in the process for speeding on the interstate while they were accelerating their speeding on the interstate, gambling on the NCAA not getting a handle on things. Did Alabama, UGA, LSU, Ohio State, hell everybody do it? No doubt...but Tennessee is the only one who did it while they were simultaneously working with the NCAA to resolve pay for play allegations which have proven to have been real. That makes Tennessee unique in the eerybody does it game....they got busted for doing it and was aggressively pushing the envelope as everybody else was doing...they are the perfect program to make an example of. There is no doubt in my mind that is why the University and the state legislature is taking such a proactive stance...they have been anticipating this battle...they knew it was coming because they were under investigation when these new allegations took place and rolled the dice. I think UT wins in the end...I don't think the NCAA has any authority to do anything other than promote a basketball tournament...but it is a bad idea to pretend as if the case is closed and the NCAA is no more. Its especially a bad idea given that NCAA membership is voluntary and UT has never, that I am aware of, balked at being a member. Being a member means, or meant, agreeing to be regulated and sanctioned by the NCAA. If the NCAA has no authority to do so today they never had any authority to do so...which is a worse look given the free labor that prestigious universities have enjoyed for a LONG time.
I think Tennessee prevails. I do not think the NCAA has EVER had any authority to regulate anything and was only allowed to do so when the money wasn't what it is today. They have run roughshod over individuals destroying lives and institutions and have never applied their investigative powers equally. But to simply discount the risk that Tennessee is exposed to at the moment is ludicrous...Tennessee most likely prevails to the detriment of the game but they ain't done it yet.
Finally, you can not bemoan the state of college athletics and in the same voice bemoan the NCAA investigating allegations of rule breaking. If the NCAA is not the regulator no one is and its indeed the wild, wild west.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:20 pm to DawginSC
quote:
The fact that a day after it came out that Tennessee was being investigated by the NCAA, the state of Tennessee sued the NCAA to make it acceptable to pay players to play for a school.
Deductive logic seems outside your skill set.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:23 pm to djsdawg
quote:
I wouldn’t be so sure about this, but I imagine this is exactly what a vol lawyer on a vol site would lead you to believe. They probably don’t know either.
It’s called thinking and reasoning. You should try it.
quote:
I understand why you hope so, but they are loud mouths, which had led to this investigation, so I would have my doubts.
They released the verbiage used in their contracts already. Their website is a lesson in compliance.
Did you read the guidance posted by the NCAA on NIL? It’s in this thread, I highly recommend reading it.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:26 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
Deductive logic seems outside your skill set.
So in your mind, deductive logic suggests that the state of Tennessee chose to sue the NCAA to make a form of cheating legal that Tennessee did not do?
Please, give us a thorough explanation of the logic you use to come to your conclusion.
My logic for believing they're suing to make the offense UT committed acceptable is as follows.
1 - The filed the suit a day after Tennessee was notified they were under investigation.
2 - There's no reason to make any other offense permissable other than the one they committed.
3 - Pretty much every UT fan was bragging about paying one of their players 8 million dollars to come to UT. It's pretty easy to believe.
The NCAA NIL bylaws has one rule in it. NIL contracts can't "induce" a player to attend or enroll in a particular school. And Tennessee is now suing to remove that rule.
This post was edited on 2/5/24 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:30 pm to Smokeyone
You are still in the first stage of grief, the shock and denial stage. Next will be the pain stage. That will be fun to watch here. When you get to stage three, the anger stage, it will really get interesting.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:32 pm to DawginSC
UT knows they have been caught red handed. They know they are on probation and another scandal would be very serous for them. So they do the only thing they know. Scream bloody murder, bluster, whine and threaten, act like the rules don’t matter - at least where they are concerned - and sue the NCAA for doing their job. Not a good strategy. It’s not going to end well for the Vols.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:39 pm to SaturdayNAthens
Too many Monday morning Coaches. Too many Monday morning lawyers. That don’t know what they are talking about. Nobody has seen anything. Everyone likes running their mouth. Ohio state must be next for buying all those players.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:42 pm to DawginSC
As for those talking about if collectives are boosters, here is the NCAA bylaws that define boosters.
"13.02.16 Representative of Athletics Interests. A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00, 4/25/18)
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their family members; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program."
Most collectives are organizations fit with D and E on the above bylaw. That makes them boosters. The above definition has been in place since at least 2000, it's not new.
"13.02.16 Representative of Athletics Interests. A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00, 4/25/18)
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their family members; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program."
Most collectives are organizations fit with D and E on the above bylaw. That makes them boosters. The above definition has been in place since at least 2000, it's not new.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:48 pm to DawginSC
As for NIL infractions, this is pretty much the ONLY NCAA bylaw rule that limits NIL contracts.
"22.01.2 Offers and Inducements. Name, image and likeness activities may not be used as an inducement for an individual to enroll or remain enrolled at a specific institution."
It doesn't specifically say you can't have it in the contract that you have to attend school X (though that would qualify of course). It says you cannot have the contract to "induce" a player to go to a particular school. Anything in the contract that tries to make sure you are attending a particular school makes your school vulnerable to sanctions.
If a school sees such language, they are supposed to suspend the player. Players are required to submit the text of NIL contracts to the school within 30 days of signing the deal or enrolling in the school (if signed before enrollment).
"22.01.2 Offers and Inducements. Name, image and likeness activities may not be used as an inducement for an individual to enroll or remain enrolled at a specific institution."
It doesn't specifically say you can't have it in the contract that you have to attend school X (though that would qualify of course). It says you cannot have the contract to "induce" a player to go to a particular school. Anything in the contract that tries to make sure you are attending a particular school makes your school vulnerable to sanctions.
If a school sees such language, they are supposed to suspend the player. Players are required to submit the text of NIL contracts to the school within 30 days of signing the deal or enrolling in the school (if signed before enrollment).
Posted on 2/5/24 at 3:55 pm to Loganville Vols
quote:
Everyone likes running their mouth
This is something that Tennessee is actually very good at.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 4:41 pm to captdalton
Lots of chatter on here but the crux of the isdue is the NCAA thinks they caught TN red handed at someyhing they have no clear cut rulings on since the SCOTUS ruling. Oh what a tangled web they have weaved lol. TN gets off scot free with instruction to NCAA to come up with rules that do not violate antitrust rights. This will hsmstring their piwer as well it should.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 5:19 pm to Smokeyone
quote:
It’s called thinking and reasoning. You should try it.
You are using T&R to claim a recruit visiting the coaches with transportation paid for by spyre isn’t a possible problem? Maybe not.
quote:
They released the verbiage used in their contracts already. Their website is a lesson in compliance.
Now we are back to the “actions speak louder than words” point you avoided earlier.
Posted on 2/5/24 at 5:24 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Now we are back to the “actions speak louder than words” point you avoided earlier.
Actions would be stuff like 6 months ago Spyre being cited by the NCAA as a model to emulate in conducting business in the NIL environment? Actions like releasing the verbiage in contracts demonstrating the separation between the NIL deal and any particular college or university?
Over words and wet dreams about the Vols being accused in the media with zero substance?
Posted on 2/5/24 at 5:28 pm to DawginSC
quote:
"22.01.2 Offers and Inducements. Name, image and likeness activities may not be used as an inducement for an individual to enroll or remain enrolled at a specific institution."
The Spyre has already publicly squashed this by giving insight into their standard contracts specifically addressing the wall of separation between any deal they broker and any specific college or university a potential student athlete attends.
I guess we can officially put this one to bed then.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News