Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#121,031
#121,031
LA Vol said:
Re: the LVs, I was responding to a post saying LSU hired a new coach and won an NC in year 2. My comment was LSU hired a coach who had already won multiple NCs and gave her the NIL arsenal to build an elite team from the portal. She had to get the players to win that NC, and she had the money, the pedigree and the support to do it.

LSU executed a strategy where all the factors were in place to win a championship—and that coach knew it before taking the job. That’s not an easy strategy to replicate, and few schools are positioned to do it.
Click to expand...
We should be
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob
#121,032
#121,032
Jimmy Football said:
If you listen to the whole interview, it really reeks of wishful thinking guiding his analysis of the situation. He wasn’t thinking like a lawyer, he was thinking like a guy that hoped (for whatever reason) the AA would knock Tennessee down a peg.

For example, he said he believed that the judge would rule in favor of the NCAA on the ground that Spyre was making sham NIL deals that disguised a de facto pay-for-play scheme (which, to be fair, is what NIL has become). But why would he (a lawyer, mind you) think that would help in an antitrust case? When the rules themselves are on trial, how a party may have attempted to navigate around them is irrelevant, especially a non-party to the suit.
Click to expand...
Not even sure that was an attorney. It reeked of a fan's emotions after reading headlines and no articles. He couldn't distinguish between the anti-trust case and UT's NCAA investigation, and he had no context whatsoever about what the Tennessee/VA case is even about.

As you mention, the very merits of the NCAA rules underpinning the NCAA case against UT are hanging in the balance. It's not even a matter of whether UT and Spyre are separate organizations, or whether Spyre's NIL deals are "sham" (whatever that means). It's whether the NCAA has the right to limit said contracts. And it's been made clear by courts now for years that the NCAA needs legislative exemption to claim that right and will continue to fail in court as they try to take those rights away.

This guy, if he's an attorney, he isn't much of one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, SugarCC, DarthVol1 and 5 others
#121,037
#121,037
Orange_Crush said:
Not even sure that was an attorney. It reeked of a fan's emotions after reading headlines and no articles. He couldn't distinguish between the anti-trust case and UT's NCAA investigation, and he had no context whatsoever about what the Tennessee/VA case is even about.

As you mention, the very merits of the NCAA rules underpinning the NCAA case against UT are hanging in the balance. It's not even a matter of whether UT and Spyre are separate organizations, or whether Spyre's NIL deals are "sham" (whatever that means). It's whether the NCAA has the right to limit said contracts. And it's been made clear by courts now for years that the NCAA needs legislative exemption to claim that right and will continue to fail in court as they try to take those rights away.

This guy, if he's an attorney, he isn't much of one.
Click to expand...
The radio host said he was a lawyer; I’m just assuming he wasn’t mistaken about that.

It was strange to me how confident he was stating a case regarding alleged violations that hadn’t yet been made public, but also opining on Tennessee’s and Virginia’s chances in a case of which he clearly had no understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, DarthVol1, Glitch and 3 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top