Favorite team:Alabama 
Location:Vancouver
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:IT
Number of Posts:21426
Registered on:1/25/2012
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message

re: DOW Back Up!

Posted by narddogg81 on 7/16/25 at 1:54 pm
quote:

people still can't afford to buy a house.
I can

re: 2025 Football Thread - Media Day

Posted by narddogg81 on 7/15/25 at 2:54 pm
quote:

So LSU didn’t play Vandy? Damn… they pushed us around.
they didn't out-physical us, they out-schemed us.
Ukraine has had patriot missile batteries that European countries gave them for over a year
What proof is there Israel is doing that other than your insane antisemitism?
quote:

That is a dumb position.

If they are being suppressed, Trump is suppressing them, therefore you can blame Trump.
what's actually a dumb position is thinking that the previous admin, the deep state in the doj and the FBI were going to just have that stuff just sitting there where a new admin could get at it. If that sort of material exists it's going to be pulling teeth to track it down
Was never logged into evidence with the FBI and was just appropriated for off the books proposed, assuming an actual list or confiscated blackmail materials ever existed as is being envisioned.

Or that is it was in the possession of the FBI, but they had months and months of lead up to vanish it before the new administration took over and cleaned house.

So here's a question for the board, if it's true that the current admin just doesn't have an Epstein list to release, would you rather have them fake up something and release that?
quote:

My argument is that if the ncaa is toothless to enforce eligibility based on where/who the money is coming from then I don’t see howthey can enforce arbitrary eligibility dates that limit a students ability to profit off NiL
then the referee and umpires in the games are open to being sued for having a monopoly on enforcing the rules of the game. Who's to say you only get 4 downs or have to only have 11 players on the field at once? That's impacting players ability to win the game, which impacts their ability to profit from their nil as winners are more valuable.

I think you are getting it a little twisted, you still have the value of your nil regardless of if you are eligible to play, assuming it actually has any value. The courts are not going to strike down the very concept of a sport having rules or more particularly about college athletics having requirements about who can play, otherwise how do you justify letting some students on the team but not others? Why can one student be on the team just cause he's good at football and another not be. Being on the team is very valuable, and you are impacting that other students ability to make whatever nil deals he/she/they can. And why would it then be limited to students only, etc etc etc?


There is a point where the sport ceases to exist, so hopefully even a group as dense as the federal judiciary see that


quote:

I’ve asked the same thing. Someone said Zakai Zeigler from UT did try to sue for this reason after last year and it was shot down, which doesn’t make sense to me if all these other suits have been successful. There’s no real consistency from case to case.
the court loses for the NCAA have all been anti trust cases. An amateur sports league having and enforcing eligibility requirements is not an anti-trust issue
quote:

Lulz
what's the big change that's going to make you guys go from shite to good?
quote:

If LSU finishes with that record it will get NASTY around here. It will be the beginning of the end for BK.
buckle up. you guys sucked on defense last season and nothing has changed besides losing your best defensive position coach and replacing him with someone who has never been a coach at all outside of high school
quote:

a racoon on meth
would be a better mascot for LSU
quote:

Napier might be fired by then. He bought himself some time with a strong finish last year, but their schedule is brutal and it could be 5 win territory pretty quickly.
pick him up in the portal later
quote:

both 260ish heading into their St year
could easily be at 280 by kickoff their freshman year
quote:

the end as that article pointed out 90% of the deals would have been approved
it said 90% of deals with companies would have been approved. 70 % of deals with collective would have been rejected. Those are the pay for play deals. I guess we will find out. Just cause scumbag sports lawyers are telling clients not to comply, that doesn't mean much. This is a totally different scenario than when the NCAA was losing case after case due to anti trust stuff. This commission is born out of a court mandated settlement, it has the backing of the judicial system until such time that any litigation challenging it makes it to a higher court. This has a legal basis for enforcement, and legal cover that goes with it. Challenges to it will be facing a much steeper slope than just attacking the NCAA for making millions and not letting the athletes profit
quote:

Not sure about where the info you are getting about the court designating a third party. You may be correct and please provide a link.

All I have seen is the NCAA no longer wants to get sued or go to court. So, the CSC was created to separate NIL from the NCAA. I have not seen anywhere that was a requirement of the court and even if so, the CSC can only punish the school for violations of NIL not a player.



The third party I was referring to is The CSC, and that was created by the district Court ruling as part of the settlement. Third party in that they are not the NCAA and they are not the player/booster making the pay for play deal.


What I've been reading says if the player chooses to go with a deal that falls outside the parameters of approved deals they will have to go through an enforcement process that could impact their eligibility

sports illustrated

There CSC is handling money related stuff and according to this anyway will have the ability to regulate players not just the schools

quote:

If a deal is denied within NIL Go, players can either submit a revised deal that falls within certain parameters or they could cancel it altogether. If they still want to move forward with things, there remain two further options: enter an arbitration process which could still approve the deal, or take the money and face the enforcement process.

Should they wind up going through door No. 4, it’s possible the CSC staff could eventually strip them of part of their eligibility to play.


So I think what you are saying about the CSC being able to only punish schools is not correct, and I also didn't think it's correct that this only applies to schools that have signed on to this

quote:

Soon, it won’t be NCAA enforcement veterans arguing their case against schools before a cadre of faculty athletic reps, lawyers and athletic directors around a set of U-shaped tables. Rather, there will be no hearing at all upon reaching the denouement of a process that is typically measured in years and not months. Instead, perhaps as early as this July, a written notice will simply be sent out to those who have been found to breach some of the new regulations in place. It will bear the logo of the newly formed College Sports Commission overseeing the new process and will rather succinctly inform them of their fate (in an ideal world) just a few weeks after an infraction takes place.


quote:

The new CSC was only recently incorporated in April and is tasked with oversight, implementation and overall enforcement of the settlement over the course of the next decade. CEO Bryan Seeley, who comes over from Major League Baseball and will assume commissioner-like powers to dole out future punishments, was officially named to his position just two hours after Judge Wilken issued her final approval of the case but technically doesn’t have a set start date prior to July 1 despite inheriting all of the problems at hand right away
quote:

The problem here though is the Clearing House is not run by the NCAA. Only the NCAA controls eligibility.
and you didn't think a player making a pay for play nil deal with a booster as determined by the designated third party (designated by the court) would be cause to remove eligibility from a player?
You gotta be barely conscious to be getting schooled by Sotomayor
quote:

But the clearinghouse would and that's why it'll crumble at the first lawsuit. When a booster wants to pay a player 500,000 dollars to show up to a ribbon cutting at one of his businesses and the clearinghouse rejects it, the lawsuit will be filed the next day. And the player will win.
no, the booster can still pay him that, the player just loses eligibility. The antitrust stuff where the NCAA and schools were profiting but not letting the players do so had been resolved, there will be profit sharing, and there will be compliant nil deals allowed. I don't see why people didn't understand this. The player doesn't have a constitutional right to eligibility, the organization that's coordinating athletic competition/fairness can set the terms of eligibility still, and if the player chooses to lose their eligibility with a non compliant deal that's on them. If their name, image, and likeness is worth $500k to a booster still without them playing, then great they get the $500k. Nobody is stopping them from making that money