NCAA trying to come down on NIL and collectives

#76
#76
Dadof2Vols said:
They don’t want them seen as employees because then they have to give them full benefits like pensions, health insurance including for dependents, etc.. that other university employees get. Big expenses straight from the “bottom line”.
Click to expand...
And if they considered LABOR? They get to collectively bargain a big piece of those billions in broadcasting and merchandise. Best to just let them get paid outside of that…they always were anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dadof2Vols and SpookyAction
#77
#77
GUNTERSVOL said:
They won't be able to limit size of deals, they won't be able to SERIOUSLY change the impact of ONE TIME TRANSFER, but they can ATTEMPT TO continue to play the competitive balance card with NIL spending caps as they have with schollie limits and on field coach limits. Sprye can cut a deal with any kid for any value they want, but cannot be assured they can go to UT until the sequence they enroll or school indicates issuance of NLI or paperwork for transfers have their impact on a cap. Just one or two more numbers to keep up with at the mother ship. What about that would fly in the face of court decision? Kids are free to get their money, and to go to the school of their choice until they run out of counters or NIL cap space. This also eliminates the double secret NIL funded walkon issue. When you are out of cap you are out of cap. Possibly would modify counter rules to include any player receiving NIL above a defined annual amount from all sources. Probably would not have to alter current squad size limits. 85 counters and 20 PWO's. Would still impact the quality of PWO's.
Click to expand...
And you’re going to get the legislature to sign off on the NCAA regulating that these kids are FAIRLY COMPENSATED? The same goobers forced into this by the Supreme Court? Believing when seeing. 😏
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolDave53
#78
#78
GUNTERSVOL said:
They won't be able to limit size of deals, they won't be able to SERIOUSLY change the impact of ONE TIME TRANSFER, but they can ATTEMPT TO continue to play the competitive balance card with NIL spending caps as they have with schollie limits and on field coach limits. Sprye can cut a deal with any kid for any value they want, but cannot be assured they can go to UT until the sequence they enroll or school indicates issuance of NLI or paperwork for transfers have their impact on a cap. Just one or two more numbers to keep up with at the mother ship. What about that would fly in the face of court decision? Kids are free to get their money, and to go to the school of their choice until they run out of counters or NIL cap space. This also eliminates the double secret NIL funded walkon issue. When you are out of cap you are out of cap. Possibly would modify counter rules to include any player receiving NIL above a defined annual amount from all sources. Probably would not have to alter current squad size limits. 85 counters and 20 PWO's. Would still impact the quality of PWO's.
Click to expand...
They can change one time transfer tomorrow. It's their rule.
 
#80
#80
butchna said:
They did it for a reason…they had no choice.
Click to expand...
The problem was that it was becoming too big of an administrative burden to decide who gets a waiver and who doesn't and they were getting into soup trying to explain why they were giving a waiver to this person and not that one. They could go back to a hard and fast rule that you have to sit a year if you transfer without either of those difficulties. I doubt they'll do it, but just saying "you sit 1 year if you transfer, no exceptions" is not illegal or anything.
 
#81
#81
unfrozencvmanvol said:
The problem was that it was becoming too big of an administrative burden to decide who gets a waiver and who doesn't and they were getting into soup trying to explain why they were giving a waiver to this person and not that one. They could go back to a hard and fast rule that you have to sit a year if you transfer without either of those difficulties. I doubt they'll do it, but just saying "you sit 1 year if you transfer, no exceptions" is not illegal or anything.
Click to expand...
Saban was against it and it happened anyway. Pretty much a final verdict.
 
#82
#82
butchna said:
Saban was against it and it happened anyway. Pretty much a final verdict.
Click to expand...
I can see them rethinking it in the era of NIL. One time transfer came before NIL. If everybody had to sit again it would slow the poaching of players already on teams. Right now we have perpetual free agency, not even the NFL has that. I'm for NIL but the current model combined with instant transfer seems unsustainable, like the start of Baseketball.

 
  • Like
Reactions: VolDave53
#83
#83
unfrozencvmanvol said:
I can see them rethinking it in the era of NIL. One time transfer came before NIL. If everybody had to sit again it would slow the poaching of players already on teams. Right now we have perpetual free agency, not even the NFL has that. I'm for NIL but the current model combined with instant transfer seems unsustainable, like the start of Baseketball.

Click to expand...

If Coach X does a solid evaluation and finds a diamond in the rough, and he comes to play for him, then it'll only take at most 2 years for a bigger school to come calling, and then boom, he's gone. This is what happened to Addison, or anyone else.

But in what profession is that not the case? If I do well at my job, and another company hears about me, and calls me and offers me a job that pays higher and gives me a better career trajectory, why WOULDN'T I at least entertain it? I'm not my company's property.

If I was doing it, I'd cut a player an initial deal for 2 years that guarantees he could stay for 2 years and receive opportunity for X amount. Then after 2 years, he gets the option of signing another deal with the same collective, or opting out and trying his luck elsewhere. Because either a player is going to like his situation and deal and all of that, or he isn't. You could include a clause that states if a players leaves before 2 years, then he is forced to return a percentage of the earnings he had garnished. The coaching staff would just know that if they sign a kid, they have two years to decide on him basically.

That way, if a player wants to transfer or if a coach decides they aren't a good fit, they're free to do so after 2 years. And if they want to re-up for two more years, they can, and then go pro after, or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction
#84
#84
unfrozencvmanvol said:
I can see them rethinking it in the era of NIL. One time transfer came before NIL. If everybody had to sit again it would slow the poaching of players already on teams. Right now we have perpetual free agency, not even the NFL has that. I'm for NIL but the current model combined with instant transfer seems unsustainable, like the start of Baseketball.

Click to expand...

Not going to overuse the “genie in a bottle” phrase but…there it is. And the whole “perpetual free agency” narrative is disingenuous. You get a do-over ONCE. Then you have to sit out. It’s not so much free agency as it is realization that kids get fooled and make faulty decisions with their lives. They get A reset and need to use it judiciously…it’s not an annual opportunity.
 
#85
#85
TNHopeful505 said:
If Coach X does a solid evaluation and finds a diamond in the rough, and he comes to play for him, then it'll only take at most 2 years for a bigger school to come calling, and then boom, he's gone. This is what happened to Addison, or anyone else.

But in what profession is that not the case? If I do well at my job, and another company hears about me, and calls me and offers me a job that pays higher and gives me a better career trajectory, why WOULDN'T I at least entertain it? I'm not my company's property.

If I was doing it, I'd cut a player an initial deal for 2 years that guarantees he could stay for 2 years and receive opportunity for X amount. Then after 2 years, he gets the option of signing another deal with the same collective, or opting out and trying his luck elsewhere. Because either a player is going to like his situation and deal and all of that, or he isn't. You could include a clause that states if a players leaves before 2 years, then he is forced to return a percentage of the earnings he had garnished. The coaching staff would just know that if they sign a kid, they have two years to decide on him basically.

That way, if a player wants to transfer or if a coach decides they aren't a good fit, they're free to do so after 2 years. And if they want to re-up for two more years, they can, and then go pro after, or whatever.
Click to expand...
It'd be alot easier for the powers that be to just go back to the one year sit rule than it would be to mandate contract lengths. Going back to the one year sit rule would accomplish basically the same ends. Where the NCAA got in trouble was when they started waiving the rule, they initially waived it for some hard luck cases that probably deserved it, but as usual then everyone started wanting one, exemplifying yet again one of the cardinal rules of life that no good deed ever goes unpunished.
 
#86
#86
butchna said:
Not going to overuse the “genie in a bottle” phrase but…there it is. And the whole “perpetual free agency” narrative is disingenuous. You get a do-over ONCE. Then you have to sit out. It’s not so much free agency as it is realization that kids get fooled and make faulty decisions with their lives. They get A reset and need to use it judiciously…it’s not an annual opportunity.
Click to expand...
Right. And the reality is, it's happening a lot right now BECAUSE NIL deals are getting thrown around to kids that didn't get them prior to signing. It's chaos right now because it's new. The recruits want a piece of it. The current players want a piece of it. What I HOPE is happening is that our current players and recruits are getting deals from Spyre that they're satisfied with.
 
#87
#87
butchna said:
Not going to overuse the “genie in a bottle” phrase but…there it is. And the whole “perpetual free agency” narrative is disingenuous. You get a do-over ONCE. Then you have to sit out. It’s not so much free agency as it is realization that kids get fooled and make faulty decisions with their lives. They get A reset and need to use it judiciously…it’s not an annual opportunity.
Click to expand...
I agree that when it comes to NIL it's going to be hard to impossible to put most of that toothpaste back in the tube. One time transfer is a different deal. It's just as legal to say everyone sits one year no exceptions as it is to give everyone a free transfer. That's the NCAA's rule, they can change that rule, it's their own rule, there is not some outside force dictating the future of that particular rule like there is with NIL where courts and legislatures are involved. If the NCAA musters the votes within its' membership it can change 1 time transfer back to you sit 1 year, 0 exceptions.
 
#88
#88
unfrozencvmanvol said:
It'd be alot easier for the powers that be to just go back to the one year sit rule than it would be to mandate contract lengths. Going back to the one year sit rule would accomplish basically the same ends. Where the NCAA got in trouble was when they started waiving the rule, they initially waived it for some hard luck cases that probably deserved it, but as usual then everyone started wanting one, exemplifying yet again one of the cardinal rules of life that no good deed ever goes unpunished.
Click to expand...
Because being able to park a kid after a signature even tho coaches are “free agents” was always “unsustainable” and will always be so. That Alvin Kamara had to go to Hutchinson CC and lose a season of eligibility because Saban mass recruited his position was a needless exercise in weighted advantage. At that time Kamara couldn’t even directly transfer to UT without losing two seasons unless Saban gave written permission…which he wouldn’t. Real lack of victims in this current victimization screen play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmchairQB and Woke
#89
#89
TNHopeful505 said:
Right. And the reality is, it's happening a lot right now BECAUSE NIL deals are getting thrown around to kids that didn't get them prior to signing. It's chaos right now because it's new. The recruits want a piece of it. The current players want a piece of it. What I HOPE is happening is that our current players and recruits are getting deals from Spyre that they're satisfied with.
Click to expand...
As soon as some of this starts to go against us, people are going to want some rules. It's all fun and games when you are winning.
 
#90
#90
TNHopeful505 said:
Right. And the reality is, it's happening a lot right now BECAUSE NIL deals are getting thrown around to kids that didn't get them prior to signing. It's chaos right now because it's new. The recruits want a piece of it. The current players want a piece of it. What I HOPE is happening is that our current players and recruits are getting deals from Spyre that they're satisfied with.
Click to expand...
If they’re not it’ll balance itself out…and they will. Both Hooker and Tillman made out big returning for a final season. First time Spyre messes up a situation will be the first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNHopeful505
#91
#91
unfrozencvmanvol said:
As soon as some of this starts to go against us, people are going to want some rules. It's all fun and games when you are winning.
Click to expand...
Like losing a player we undervalued? Crossing bridges and getting there.
 
#92
#92
unfrozencvmanvol said:
I agree that when it comes to NIL it's going to be hard to impossible to put most of that toothpaste back in the tube. One time transfer is a different deal. It's just as legal to say everyone sits one year no exceptions as it is to give everyone a free transfer. That's the NCAA's rule, they can change that rule, it's their own rule, there is not some outside force dictating the future of that particular rule like there is with NIL where courts and legislatures are involved. If the NCAA musters the votes within its' membership it can change 1 time transfer back to you sit 1 year, 0 exceptions.
Click to expand...
They changed it because they knew it wouldn’t hold up to legal challenge…like anti-trust legislation. It was a bone they can’t take back without losing a leg.
 
#93
#93
The Supreme Court's ruling in Alston was a lot more narrow than some of y'all think. All Alston did was rule on pretty narrow issue of NCAA caps on student-athlete academic benefits (i.e. reimbursements and pay for academic-related expenses). Alston effectively guarantees that there will be more litigation to sort out where the line of proper regulation is, not that there is no proper line.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
unfrozencvmanvol said:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Alston was a lot more narrow than some of y'all think. All Alston did was rule on pretty narrow issue of NCAA caps on student-athlete academic benefits (i.e. reimbursements and pay for academic-related expenses). Alston effectively guarantees that there will be more litigation to sort out where the line of proper regulation is, not that there is no proper line.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this works out for you. You seem pretty invested.
 
#95
#95
I’m not really sure that the ncaa can do anything about it. They tried to prevent these type initiatives forever. Eventually, the govt stepped in and created a law preventing them from standing in the way of the kids ability to make money. I’d say there will be virtually zero significant changes to NIL
 
#96
#96
butchna said:
Hopefully this works out for you. You seem pretty invested.
Click to expand...
Well, legal stuff interests me. I don't practice antitrust law but I can read a case and get the jist of it regardless. Alston is just the start of a longer process that fleshes out the law in this area.
 
#98
#98
unfrozencvmanvol said:
They can change one time transfer tomorrow. It's their rule.
Click to expand...

If they implement NIL caps, the last thing they want to do is restrict the mobility of kids when a school exceeds a cap number. They will want them to be free to take their money to another school. Once the school identifies the players with NIL they will use under the cap, the others will have to be free to stay with or without schollie and NIL redshirt or enter the portal at their option.
 
#99
#99
#100
#100
GUNTERSVOL said:
If they implement NIL caps, the last thing they want to do is restrict the mobility of kids when a school exceeds a cap number. They will want them to be free to take their money to another school. Once the school identifies the players with NIL they will use under the cap, the others will have to be free to stay with or without schollie and NIL redshirt or enter the portal at their option.
Click to expand...
Caps like in pro sports aren't going to work I don't think. The nearest thing they might can do is regulate NIL contracts the way they do doctor-hospital agreements. The federal Stark and Anti-Kickback laws provide a precedent for how to structure the regulations. Like I said above, doctors are recruited by hospitals and communities and those laws regulate how they can be paid.

If the NCAA modeled some regulations on Stark-Anti-Kickback, they would adopt some rules by-laws prohibiting blatant pay for play and requiring that any compensation for NIL to be fair market value, that's what they do with doctors except with doctors it's prohibiting "pay for referrals" instead of pay for play.

The NCAA could set up some rules along this line that would probably pass legal muster, like I said there is considerable precedent, and say these are our rules, and if you don't follow them, you're ineligible, it doesn't mean you can't make money, but if you don't want to be restricted to fair market value and abide by these rules regarding improper incentives, then you can go play somewhere else. Who knows, a real minor league could pop up? The conferences could do the same thing also.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top