Recent content by ntxVOL

Yep, they could be a lot better and still only win 8 games. I don't see the Vols beating them in the swamp but a lot can happen before we play them.

I have a hard time believing the numbers being thrown out in the OP. If those numbers are accurate then, CJH isn't the answer because we should be recruiting in the top 5.

Not sure what point you're making about Holloway but he came to UT because he wanted to play QB and he had few options back then. If he were chasing NFL aspirations, he probably would have chosen Bama instead and become a DB.

Can't do it anymore, what a sh*t show CFB has become. I can't in good conscience contribute anymore. That's all... flame a way.

There are unintended consequences here, not sure this will turn out how everyone thinks. ETA: The government shouldn't be involved here, nothing good will come of this.

Man, there's a lot to distill in that video, may need to watch more than once. Overall a lot of good information in there.

Did you know, everyone gets a guaranteed amount even if they go 0-12? SEC/B1G schools get 21m each. ACC schools get 13m each. B12/ND get 12m each Group of 5 get <2m each. That’s before money paid for appearances, which go back to the conferences and distribution may vary.

That's exactly what they intend to do with this lawsuit settlement. Maybe some other court says no you can't do that. We shall see.

You are saying that the NCAA is now powerless to control a booster pay for play scheme? Sorry but I'm going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

They can and it does not violate Antitrust law. The collectives are essentially a booster, boosters can't pay players to play for a specific school. Collectives can't pay players to play for a specific school. Spyre isn't paying anyone to play for any other school than UT, hence they are a...

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, I 100% agree what the collectives are doing is legal. But from a competition standpoint, the NCAA should be able to define "legit" in regards to athlete eligibility. A collective can certainly pay an athlete well above his/her market value. That doesn't mean...

I don't know why the NCAA members would agree to revenue sharing without eliminating the illegitimate pay for play NIL deals. The agreement doesn't limit an athlete's ability to seek out legitimate NIL money. But i know you seem to think what the collectives are doing is legit. I'm not going...

So how is that supposed to work? Who decides which decision is correct? I'm not sure it actually conflicts, it just eliminates collectives, athletes can still negotiate NIL deals.

The NCAA is going to attempt to make those type of deals against the rules. It is part of a lawsuit settlement and the member schools have voted and agreed to it. That's the deal, if it gets struck down, the players will lose their revenue share. Hard to say how this turns out but that's...

That is one of the things the NCAA hopes to accomplish with this settlement and the resulting rule changes. The collectives have been pay for play up to this point. NIL contracts will no longer be allowed to be dependent on the person playing at any specific school. Contracts likely won't...