Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate this crap. I have no problem with NIL as it is supposed to be intended..but not this nightmare. Of course it has to happen when we are at our lowest point in..well forever. I told all of y'all that were celebrating this crap when it was opened up, that this would do nothing but harm Tennessee. I see zero evidence that it is going to help Tennessee Volunteers, and an abundance of evidence that is extremely detrimental.

I am a Volunteer, I only care about what it means for Tennessee, and all it seems to mean for us is more crap to try to overcome.

I don't love it...I hate it with every fiber of my being right now.

NIL is supposed to be an athlete being able to sell his or her image and likeness. IOW, he can sell a jersey with his name or she can sell an appearance signing autographs or even endorsing products. What it's NOT supposed to be even by NCAA's loose definition is schools buying players or using 3rd parties to buy them. However, it looks like right now that is the only kind of NIL out there and that fans not only think this is now allowed but want their schools' participating in the bidding process (only better get your money in as a recruit because if you're already a starter a good number of fans will say 'eff that bum' even as they throw ridiculous amounts at the same player as a recruit). Oy vey!

(And McGill I know that's not you as you and I have both been opposed to NIL from the start - I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies we're seeing in fellow fans as even the ones who have embraced it only want to pay players in principal and based upon their potential.) A guy like Banks presents problems not only because he's got baggage but because he's a work horse player rather than a super star or a potential star. People don't want to pay for competent or good - they want to pay for either potential or already great.

Alontae and his cookie deal is a good example of what was *supposed* to happen and what is supposed to be allowed while TAMU/Texas and even what we're hearing about our own deal with Spyre are examples of how it's NOT supposed to work. Schools, UT included, are going to follow that model until it's reined in though and a few will get hit for things that fans mistakenly believe is ok right now but that won't happen immediately.

I think the various Texas schools and others that are pushing boundaries are hoping the NCAA fires off warning shots before going down any compliance path *but* TAMU and Texas are notoriously litigious schools and after a taste of success with outright buying players they will absolutely fight tooth and nail to make paying players outright not only legal but the norm. And unless you're USC, you'd be a fool to support that. Texas and TAMU have money that other schools will never be able to compete with and if it's allowed to simply be a free market then CFB is beyond repair.
 
The rub, as I see it, on Neyor is no one would have batted an eye had we not pursued a WR from the portal. Most posters agree that wasn't being viewed as one of our bigger weaknesses. Yet the coaches chose to go after a WR with, if you figure we only have 1-2 open scholarships currently, a very precious scholarship. I trust the coaches. So if they felt the need to go after a WR, I have to assume they see it as an important need. I was extremely confident in one of our other WRs stepping into that WR2 role until the coaches went after Neyor. Then I started wondering why WR was viewed as one of our big positions of need, over the defense? I'm not passing judgement over any WR on the roster, but I am trusting the judgement of the coaches, who felt it important to go get a WR.

Or the coaches are going after the best portal players they see. Not just grabbing one to fill a spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hooter vol
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top