Learn about NIL

#51
#51
pimo1 said:
One Huge advantage TN has over a lot of States is we are one of 8 that has no state income tax. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
Click to expand...

Unless the player sets up an s corporation for their NIL income streams. Then they will have to pay Tennessee corporate income tax.
 
#54
#54
lukeneyland said:
No my entire issue is that I find the presence of these statutes (no matter what they are) unnecessary government overreach.
Click to expand...

So without knowledge of the actual laws, you are just against them on principal? So for instance, this one:

An institution may not maintain a rule that prevents or restricts a student athlete from earning compensation through the use of their NIL
Click to expand...

So you are against that one?

Or:

An Institution must conduct a financial literacy workshop for intercollegiate athletes during the athlete's first full-time term of enrollment
Click to expand...

That's definitely a bad idea, right?

Or these doozies:

An institution may adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions to prevent an intercollegiate athlete's NIL activities from interfering with team activities, the institution's operations or the use of the institution's facilities
An institution may prohibit an athlete's involvement in NIL activities that are reasonably considered to be in conflict with the values of the institution
An institution may prohibit use of the institution's intellectual property, including but not limited to its trademarks, trade dress and copyrights in the athletes' personal name, image and likeness activities
Student athletes may not enter into a NIL agreement if it conflicts or unreasonably competes with the terms of an existing agreement entered into by the institution. The agreement may not be in effect any longer than the duration of the athlete’s participation in an athletic program at an institution.
Click to expand...
So essentially the law prohibits disrupting practice, using sensitive IP, or causing a breach of contract that could get the university in legal trouble. But you are against those?

Of course there is also this:

Student athletes are also prohibited from involvement in NIL activities that promote:

  • Gambling
  • Tobacco
  • Alcohol
  • Adult entertainment
Click to expand...

But again, why would state legislatures care if a player was, you know, promoting the Mouses Ear? How dare they. That is government overreach if ever I've heard of it.

Since you haven't read them, then you wouldn't realize that aside from disclosure rules, the above represents the entirety of the statute, but I suspect that this last one is what you are really upset about:

An entity whose purpose includes supporting or benefiting the institution or its athletic program (e.g., boosters) may not compensate or cause compensation to be provided to a current or prospective intercollegiate athlete for the athlete's name, image or likeness if the arrangement is contingent on the athlete's enrollment or continued participation at an institution.
Click to expand...

And serious question here, do you really think that one is unreasonable?

Everything in the statute seems incredibly "common-sense" to me and not at all like excessive government. But we can, of course, agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pimo1 and kcvols1
#55
#55
1world1love said:
So without knowledge of the actual laws, you are just against them on principal? So for instance, this one:



So you are against that one?

Or:



That's definitely a bad idea, right?

Or these doozies:


So essentially the law prohibits disrupting practice, using sensitive IP, or causing a breach of contract that could get the university in legal trouble. But you are against those?

Of course there is also this:



But again, why would state legislatures care if a player was, you know, promoting the Mouses Ear? How dare they. That is government overreach if ever I've heard of it.

Since you haven't read them, then you wouldn't realize that aside from disclosure rules, the above represents the entirety of the statute, but I suspect that this last one is what you are really upset about:



And serious question here, do you really think that one is unreasonable?

Everything in the statute seems incredibly "common-sense" to me and not at all like excessive government. But we can, of course, agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
It’s entirely on principal. I believe in limited government in almost every situation.
 
#57
#57
lukeneyland said:
It’s entirely on principal. I believe in limited government in almost every situation.
Click to expand...

So if protecting the interests of the flagship University of the state is not their job, what would you think falls outside the "almost every" category.

Do you think players and coaches betting on games should not be governed? I mean it is just a game, right?
 
#59
#59
1world1love said:
So if protecting the interests of the flagship University of the state is not their job, what would you think falls outside the "almost every" category.

Do you think players and coaches betting on games should not be governed? I mean it is just a game, right?
Click to expand...
I’m fairly sure the gambling thing is already regulated outside of NIL legislation. No I don’t believe they need to interject themselves to look after UT’s interest
 
#60
#60
lukeneyland said:
I’m fairly sure the gambling thing is already regulated outside of NIL legislation. No I don’t believe they need to interject themselves to look after UT’s interest
Click to expand...

You said "I believe in limited government in almost every situation". I am asking if you think that gambling by college athletes and coaches should be regulated by the government? That has nothing to do with NIL. I'm just wondering what situations would be okay for our elected officials to get involved in.

And just to be clear, who would you think would look after UT's interests if not the officials that we elected to do so? The not-elected university administration? The not-elected board of regents? And I am definitely not trying to give you a hard time, because I get where you are coming from. But somebody has to govern. If the elected officials don't, then somebody that you don't know will.

It's easy to say that there should be limited government, but all that means is that we don't want the people that the people elected, and whom we pay, to do their job and instead we are willing to leave it up to somebody that we didn't elect, and aren't paying, to do it. "Horror vacui". It is pretty much how we got in this mess in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pimo1 and kcvols1
#61
#61
1world1love said:
You said "I believe in limited government in almost every situation". I am asking if you think that gambling by college athletes and coaches should be regulated by the government? That has nothing to do with NIL. I'm just wondering what situations would be okay for our elected officials to get involved in.

And just to be clear, who would you think would look after UT's interests if not the officials that we elected to do so? The not-elected university administration? The not-elected board of regents? And I am definitely not trying to give you a hard time, because I get where you are coming from. But somebody has to govern. If the elected officials don't, then somebody that you don't know will.

It's easy to say that there should be limited government, but all that means is that we don't want the people that the people elected, and whom we pay, to do their job and instead we are willing to leave it up to somebody that we didn't elect, and aren't paying, to do it. "Horror vacui". It is pretty much how we got in this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...
Sorry I misread the previous post. I’m watching the title game between responses. To answer the first question, yes I do think there should be a law prohibiting athletes from gambling on games that they are participating in. At this point yes I think I’d prefer the unelected UT officials as the lesser of two evils. Sorry if my responses aren’t to detailed am watching a hell of a ball game.
 
#62
#62
1world1love said:
You said "I believe in limited government in almost every situation". I am asking if you think that gambling by college athletes and coaches should be regulated by the government? That has nothing to do with NIL. I'm just wondering what situations would be okay for our elected officials to get involved in.

And just to be clear, who would you think would look after UT's interests if not the officials that we elected to do so? The not-elected university administration? The not-elected board of regents? And I am definitely not trying to give you a hard time, because I get where you are coming from. But somebody has to govern. If the elected officials don't, then somebody that you don't know will.

It's easy to say that there should be limited government, but all that means is that we don't want the people that the people elected, and whom we pay, to do their job and instead we are willing to leave it up to somebody that we didn't elect, and aren't paying, to do it. "Horror vacui". It is pretty much how we got in this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t you see a situation where state reps from say Nashville or Memphis support legislation that would be more beneficial to their schools than ours?
 
#63
#63
lukeneyland said:
Sorry I misread the previous post. I’m watching the title game between responses. To answer the first question, yes I do think there should be a law prohibiting athletes from gambling on games that they are participating in. At this point yes I think I’d prefer the unelected UT officials as the lesser of two evils. Sorry if my responses aren’t to detailed am watching a hell of a ball game.
Click to expand...

No worries. Sadly I forgot about the title game. Same year, different s**t.
 
#65
#65
lukeneyland said:
Couldn’t you see a situation where state reps from say Nashville or Memphis support legislation that would be more beneficial to their schools than ours?
Click to expand...

Sure, but in theory, they would be accountable to the voters. Not every law is going to benefit every person, but the absence of laws won't solve that. It will just mean that "laws" will be implemented by un-elected entities (like the NCAA for instance).

In any case, I am hitting the hay, but really appreciate the civil discourse. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but I do think that TN laws are pretty fair and reasonable. Certainly many states have more regulation than us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland
#66
#66
lukeneyland said:
Couldn’t you see a situation where state reps from say Nashville or Memphis support legislation that would be more beneficial to their schools than ours?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Vandy has more football fans than Tennessee has liberal legislators.
 
#68
#68
37620VOL said:
Pretty sure Vandy has more football fans than Tennessee has liberal legislators.
Click to expand...

I am not sure of the relationship between party affiliation and football fandom. Or are you saying that liberal politicians are more likely to pass legislation favoring their constituents than conservatives? Or? I guess I I just don't get the implication of the joke.

If anything, college sports seems to be a non-partisan subject. Some of the biggest UT fans and donors that I know are pretty liberal. But I am not sure it is relevant at all since it seems contrived to try to paint NIL legislation as some sort of ideological struggle. The Supreme Court was unanimous in slapping around the NCAA, and if you look at the legislation that has been passed in states around the country, there is not much difference between those states that lean blue and those that lean red, at the state level.

I mean, not every issue has to be politically divisive right? (To be fair though, I am not sure that you were implying that)
 
#69
#69
1world1love said:
I am not sure of the relationship between party affiliation and football fandom. Or are you saying that liberal politicians are more likely to pass legislation favoring their constituents than conservatives? Or? I guess I I just don't get the implication of the joke.

If anything, college sports seems to be a non-partisan subject. Some of the biggest UT fans and donors that I know are pretty liberal. But I am not sure it is relevant at all since it seems contrived to try to paint NIL legislation as some sort of ideological struggle. The Supreme Court was unanimous in slapping around the NCAA, and if you look at the legislation that has been passed in states around the country, there is not much difference between those states that lean blue and those that lean red, at the state level.

I mean, not every issue has to be politically divisive right? (To be fair though, I am not sure that you were implying that)
Click to expand...

I was responding to Luke who's position is on limited gov't and low regulation. That inspired my lighthearted shot at Vandy. Maybe it didn't land but I never pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Vandy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1world1love
#70
#70
37620VOL said:
I was responding to Luke who's position is on limited gov't and low regulation. That inspired my lighthearted shot at Vandy. Maybe it didn't land but I never pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Vandy.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. My bad. And fully supportive of any joke at Vandy's expense ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37620VOL
#71
#71
Glad this thread was able to get some good conversation going. We even made it 3 pages with out a troll takeover.

I get that people have their stances on politics and government and we are all welcome to have them here in America. Thank you lukeneyland for bringing some perspective and proving one can disagree without being totally irrational. We need more like you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top