NCAA Gonna Lose

#1

MontyPython

Dorothy Mantooth is a saint!
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
8,447
Likes
12,629
#1
The legal basis for Tennessee's lawsuit v. the NCAA seems pretty solid. Its recent action to prevent recruits from discussing NIL deals appears to violate both the spirit and intent of the Sherman Act, and lays the NCAA bare to anti-competitive lawsuits like this one.

TLDR: The NCAA is going to lose if they fight this battle.

"...Plaintiff States also each prohibit athletic associations—including the NCAA—from interfering with athletes’ ability to earn NIL compensation. Tenn. Code Ann. §49-7-2803 (athletics asociations—including the NCAA—cannot “interfere” with athletes’ ability to earn NIL compensation or otherwise limit athletes’ eligibility for doing so); Va. Code Ann. §23.1-408.1(B)(1)-(3) (athletic associations, including the NCAA, may not “prevent a student-athlete from earning compensation,” “obtaining professional representation,” or maintaining eligibility “for intercollegiate athletic competitions” for protected use of NIL rights). Plaintiffs, and many other States like them, have facilitated a vibrant and growing marketplace for NIL deals.

4. But the NCAA is thumbing its nose at the law. After allowing NIL licensing to emerge nationwide, the NCAA is trying to stop that market from functioning. This month, it announced new proposals related to “student-athlete protections in NIL.” These “protections” allow current athletes in to pursue NIL compensation. But it bans prospective college athletes (including current college athletes looking to transfer to another school who are in the “transfer portal”) from discussing potential NIL opportunities before they actually enroll. It’s like a coach looking for a new job, and freely talking to many different schools, but being unable to negotiate salary until after he’s picked one (the depressive effect on coaches’ wages in such a dysfunctional market is obvious).

5. By prohibiting such interactions, the NCAA’s current approach restricts competition among schools and third parties (often NIL “collectives”) to arrange the best NIL opportunities for prospective athletes. The NCAA bans the use of NIL contracts as a “recruiting inducement,” meaning prospective athletes cannot negotiate NIL agreements before they commit to a member institution. A prospective athlete must commit, enroll, or transfer without understanding the NIL opportunities available at the destination or comparing those opportunities to the ones at competing schools. Thus, NIL-recruiting ban limits competition and artificially decreases NIL compensation that college athletes could otherwise obtain in a free market."

62478c854fa27e64e6e2e3b93c2263a3.jpg
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
The legal basis for Tennessee's lawsuit v. the NCAA seems pretty solid. Its recent action to prevent recruits from discussing NIL deals appears to violate both the spirit and intent of the Sherman Act, and lays the NCAA bear to anti-competitive lawsuits like this one.

TLDR: The NCAA is going to lose if they fight this battle.

"...Plaintiff States also each prohibit athletic associations—including the NCAA—from
interfering with athletes’ ability to earn NIL compensation. Tenn. Code Ann. §49-7-2803 (athletic
associations—including the NCAA—cannot “interfere” with athletes’ ability to earn NIL
compensation or otherwise limit athletes’ eligibility for doing so); Va. Code Ann. §23.1-408.1(B)(1)-
(3) (athletic associations, including the NCAA, may not “prevent a student-athlete from earning
compensation,” “obtaining professional representation,” or maintaining eligibility “for intercollegiate
athletic competitions” for protected use of NIL rights). Plaintiffs, and many other States like them,
have facilitated a vibrant and growing marketplace for NIL deals.

4. But the NCAA is thumbing its nose at the law. After allowing NIL licensing to emerge
nationwide, the NCAA is trying to stop that market from functioning. This month, it announced new
proposals related to “student-athlete protections in NIL.” These “protections” allow current athletes
to pursue NIL compensation. But it bans prospective college athletes (including current college athletes looking to transfer to another school who are in the “transfer portal”) from discussing potential NIL opportunities before they actually enroll. It’s like a coach looking for a new job, and freely talking to
many different schools, but being unable to negotiate salary until after he’s picked one (the depressive
effect on coaches’ wages in such a dysfunctional market is obvious).

5. By prohibiting such interactions, the NCAA’s current approach restricts competition
among schools and third parties (often NIL “collectives”) to arrange the best NIL opportunities for
prospective athletes. The NCAA bans the use of NIL contracts as a “recruiting inducement,” meaning
prospective athletes cannot negotiate NIL agreements before they commit to a member institution. A
prospective athlete must commit, enroll, or transfer without understanding the NIL opportunities
available at the destination or comparing those opportunities to the ones at competing schools.
This
NIL-recruiting ban limits competition and artificially decreases NIL compensation that college
athletes could otherwise obtain in a free market."

Thanks for posting this. It pretty much sums up the crux of the state's case pretty well. Spyre and high-school athletes cannot be prevented from negotiating a deal and the NCAA cannot punish the athlete because doing so violates the Sherman Act. If an athlete is denied the ability to compete, it restricts their ability to earn.

Even if Spyre did fly Nico out on a private jet, Spyre and Nico can negotiate in any way that serves them best. If UT offers to fly Nico out on a Delta flight and Nico says "No thanks, I've got a ride", UT has no mechanism to affect that.

Seems like any attempt by the NCAA to declare Nico ineligible would be a violation of both state law and federal anti-trust laws.

And if it is true that the NCAA did not find any evidence that UT staff participated in negotiations, then there is not a path to punish UT.

From my understanding, the Florida State case was based on a staff member that admitted to driving the recruit to a meeting with a collective. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
 
#4
#4
This reeks of Nick Saban tampering. NIL is what drove him out of the business. Mark Emmert, former NCAA president that just recently retired, is his best bud.

Call it tin-foil theory, etc. But, I smell a rat!
Not everything is a conspiracy. Not everything has Nick Saban tainted. The earth isn’t flat. We did land on the moon. 911 wasn’t an inside job. Kermit the frog is just a green piece of felt with someone’s hand up his butt.
 
#6
#6
NCAA protect student athletes?!?? I laughed so hard I about shat myself. Ask Bru or Tez Walker how they “protect” athletes while holding their eligibility hostage.
I heard that, the ncaa protecting athletes is a very rich horse hockey comment right there. If you polled America I bet 80 percent at least would say the NCAA governing body is inept and broken. I have no doubt about that. GBO
 
#7
#7
This reeks of Nick Saban tampering. NIL is what drove him out of the business. Mark Emmert, former NCAA president that just recently retired, is his best bud.

Call it tin-foil theory, etc. But, I smell a rat!
Ive thought this was a possibility from the start.... for 2 reasons. He wanted Nico badly and the NIL situation was one reason he retired.
 
#11
#11
The legal basis for Tennessee's lawsuit v. the NCAA seems pretty solid. Its recent action to prevent recruits from discussing NIL deals appears to violate both the spirit and intent of the Sherman Act, and lays the NCAA bare to anti-competitive lawsuits like this one.

TLDR: The NCAA is going to lose if they fight this battle.

"...Plaintiff States also each prohibit athletic associations—including the NCAA—from interfering with athletes’ ability to earn NIL compensation. Tenn. Code Ann. §49-7-2803 (athletics asociations—including the NCAA—cannot “interfere” with athletes’ ability to earn NIL compensation or otherwise limit athletes’ eligibility for doing so); Va. Code Ann. §23.1-408.1(B)(1)-(3) (athletic associations, including the NCAA, may not “prevent a student-athlete from earning compensation,” “obtaining professional representation,” or maintaining eligibility “for intercollegiate athletic competitions” for protected use of NIL rights). Plaintiffs, and many other States like them, have facilitated a vibrant and growing marketplace for NIL deals.

4. But the NCAA is thumbing its nose at the law. After allowing NIL licensing to emerge nationwide, the NCAA is trying to stop that market from functioning. This month, it announced new proposals related to “student-athlete protections in NIL.” These “protections” allow current athletes in to pursue NIL compensation. But it bans prospective college athletes (including current college athletes looking to transfer to another school who are in the “transfer portal”) from discussing potential NIL opportunities before they actually enroll. It’s like a coach looking for a new job, and freely talking to many different schools, but being unable to negotiate salary until after he’s picked one (the depressive effect on coaches’ wages in such a dysfunctional market is obvious).

5. By prohibiting such interactions, the NCAA’s current approach restricts competition among schools and third parties (often NIL “collectives”) to arrange the best NIL opportunities for prospective athletes. The NCAA bans the use of NIL contracts as a “recruiting inducement,” meaning prospective athletes cannot negotiate NIL agreements before they commit to a member institution. A prospective athlete must commit, enroll, or transfer without understanding the NIL opportunities available at the destination or comparing those opportunities to the ones at competing schools. Thus, NIL-recruiting ban limits competition and artificially decreases NIL compensation that college athletes could otherwise obtain in a free market."
SCOTUS vs. Alston sealed the deal...ding dong the witch is dead.

It's quite shocking the NCAA was able to get away with their illegal monopoly for as long as they did and now we have to deal with the fallout of a corrupt and illegal entity that was allowed to flourish for decades.
 
#12
#12
This reeks of Nick Saban tampering. NIL is what drove him out of the business. Mark Emmert, former NCAA president that just recently retired, is his best bud.

Call it tin-foil theory, etc. But, I smell a rat!
Yes, I'm sure Nick is extremely worried about UT in his infancy of retirement.
 
#15
#15
5. By prohibiting such interactions, the NCAA’s current approach restricts competition among schools and third parties (often NIL “collectives”) to arrange the best NIL opportunities for prospective athletes. The NCAA bans the use of NIL contracts as a “recruiting inducement,” meaning prospective athletes cannot negotiate NIL agreements before they commit to a member institution. A prospective athlete must commit, enroll, or transfer without understanding the NIL opportunities available at the destination or comparing those opportunities to the ones at competing schools. Thus, NIL-recruiting ban limits competition and artificially decreases NIL compensation that college athletes could otherwise obtain in a free market."
So what elite players have made their commitment and enrolled prior to working out an NIL deal? I'm sure this happens all the time. Name just one? And just how many schools are now "guilty" based upon this "rule" and how many are being investigated?...or should I say targeted/persecuted? Reading that made my blood boil, and I'm ANTI NIL. This is absolutely selective persecution and bias against UT, and I hope there's a way to prove actual damages to our recruiting, portal and program. UT should take every penny and gift it to Spyre and our recruiting efforts as a poke in the NCAA's eye.
 
#16
#16
OK NCAA loses (thank you so much for not typing "loose"). And they probably will. Then what?

Is college sports the dog that caught the car?
 
#17
#17
OK NCAA loses (thank you so much for not typing "loose"). And they probably will. Then what?

Is college sports the dog that caught the car?
“thank you so much for not typing "loose"”
My Tennessee edumacation didn’t give me much, but that right there….🤦🏻‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦
 
#18
#18
Last edited:
#20
#20
The NCAA could lose a case on NIL as a recruiting inducement if a court rules that it can't restrict a person's
ability to earn money in a market. But there is only a market for high-school kids if the majors are dumb enough
to create it--and carry on with it. In a practical and ethical sense, what is the reason for doing so? No program is going
to use it to competitive advantage when every major has the money to bribe players. Everyone will win a few bribery battles
and lose a bunch--and turn high-schoolers into cynical mercenaries in the process. I don't see the point of it. It's stupid and unseemly--but
of course if the court rules against the NCAA and one or a few schools decide to stick with using NIL to bribe HS prospects,
then everyone will have to keep doing it and it will be a huge waste of money. It's an all in or out thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Delmar
#21
#21
This reeks of Nick Saban tampering. NIL is what drove him out of the business. Mark Emmert, former NCAA president that just recently retired, is his best bud.

Call it tin-foil theory, etc. But, I smell a rat!
I smell a Ratvol.
 
#22
#22
I guess it still baffles me some STILL do not understand the issues with NIL and the lawsuit (I know they probably think they do and I know I don’t). It simply does not matter what we think of all this (I personally am having an adjustment period for sure) and our concern for what will happen to the collegiate sports we’ve enjoyed so much. It is a legal issue ruled on by the highest court in the land. We can pontificate our feelings and desires but that simply does not enter the picture. Hopefully the lawsuit will fall our way and we can put it behind us. Adapt and overcome…🤷‍♂️
 
#24
#24
Not one bit. GBO
Agreed. It is wishful thinking by some of our opponents that it hurts recruiting. However Nico with the ability to pull down a potential $8 million from endorsement deals on Rocky Top puts a lot of orange tint on sun glasses being worn by recruits. UTAD had and has nothing to do with any organizations willing to pay Nico for his endorsements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodlawn VOL

VN Store



Back
Top