NCAA trying to come down on NIL and collectives

#126
#126
NIL deals are supposed to be what a player earns, not a pre-arranged plan used for recruiting purposes. We have Nico $375k and he hadn’t earned anything, and we gave him 8 million over 4 years. That’s not NIL, that’s buying a player. I’m glad we did it, if not someone else would have. But, it’s not what NIL was supposed to be
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1, NashvilleFan and Brave Volunteer
#127
#127
UT_Tix79 said:
NIL deals are supposed to be what a player earns, not a pre-arranged plan used for recruiting purposes. We have Nico $375k and he hadn’t earned anything, and we gave him 8 million over 4 years. That’s not NIL, that’s buying a player. I’m glad we did it, if not someone else would have. But, it’s not what NIL was supposed to be
Click to expand...

Is he a 5 star QB recruit? He’s earned whatever it takes to be a vol. That’s the essence of NIL
 
#128
#128
UT_Tix79 said:
NIL deals are supposed to be what a player earns, not a pre-arranged plan used for recruiting purposes. We have Nico $375k and he hadn’t earned anything, and we gave him 8 million over 4 years. That’s not NIL, that’s buying a player. I’m glad we did it, if not someone else would have. But, it’s not what NIL was supposed to be
Click to expand...
Since when has there ever been regulations or opinions on how nil was spent rather it be for high school or college last I checked it’s a free market and people who are working age are allowed to make an income…The ncaa trying to relegate offers being made to recruits violates antitrust laws and this charade will not last nor will it be taken seriously from legit businesses that are not affiliated to the university other than being in communication due to state laws allowing it, the moment the ncaa tries to punish a university over what some business does which they have no control over is the moment the ncaa will be taken to court. A university can’t control what a business does…
 
#129
#129
There's another case proceeding through the courts now about NiL and NCAA rules. If the NCAA decides to fight it to the Supreme Court, we know how it will end.

"the NCAA's remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws."

That was the most damning statement of many from Kavanaugh. It's safe to say after a 9-0 vote in the prior case, that the NCAA will never win a case where they try and deny pay. Especially pay coming from outside the college. Kavanaugh pointed out its no more legal for them to do that than it would be for every hospital in the country to get together and slash pay for Healthcare workers to nothing. Kavanaugh pretty much said "you're losing the next lawsuit too."

The official NCAA stance the day after the ruling was "we embrace NiL. Bring it on!" Too late to back track now. Next stop is revenue sharing.
 
#130
#130
Voltime123 said:
Since when has there ever been regulations or opinions on how nil was spent rather it be for high school or college last I checked it’s a free market and people who are working age are allowed to make an income…The ncaa trying to relegate offers being made to recruits violates antitrust laws and this charade will not last nor will it be taken seriously from legit businesses that are not affiliated to the university other than being in communication due to state laws allowing it, the moment the ncaa tries to punish a university over what some business does which they have no control over is the moment the ncaa will be taken to court. A university can’t control what a business does…
Click to expand...
And the NCAA can't overrule state laws.

Laws in nearly two dozen states prohibit schools and the NCAA from punishing athletes for accepting money from third parties. These guidelines, if enforced by the NCAA, could lead to legal challenges. Athletes in states without laws that specifically address college sports compensation also could file lawsuits that claim any limits the NCAA places on their ability to make endorsement money violate federal antitrust laws.
Click to expand...

NCAA issues 'reasonable' NIL booster guidelines
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#131
#131
UT_Tix79 said:
NIL deals are supposed to be what a player earns, not a pre-arranged plan used for recruiting purposes. We have Nico $375k and he hadn’t earned anything, and we gave him 8 million over 4 years. That’s not NIL, that’s buying a player. I’m glad we did it, if not someone else would have. But, it’s not what NIL was supposed to be
Click to expand...
I think what was posted as far as the $8m was UP $8m which could mean he has the potential to earn it and honestly with all the top recruits now looking at TN and TN making headlines, I'd say he's earn that $375K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#132
#132
Voltime123 said:
Since when has there ever been regulations or opinions on how nil was spent rather it be for high school or college last I checked it’s a free market and people who are working age are allowed to make an income…The ncaa trying to relegate offers being made to recruits violates antitrust laws and this charade will not last nor will it be taken seriously from legit businesses that are not affiliated to the university other than being in communication due to state laws allowing it, the moment the ncaa tries to punish a university over what some business does which they have no control over is the moment the ncaa will be taken to court. A university can’t control what a business does…
Click to expand...

It is either legal or not legal for athletes to sign contracts to earn money outside of the athletic department. As long as the business entity is not part of the university structure it will be really tough to make rules to limit their activities that are within the law. I do SUSPECT there will be some governmental involvement down the road when the majority of Congress folks favorites are disadvantaged due to a lack of consistency if driven by individual state laws. Not sure the form they will attempt to employ.

Trying to limit companies signing prospects to NIL centric deals will be hard to eliminate without some NEW legal basis, though there will be risk of kids not becoming eligible, doing stupid things, deciding they want to stay closer to home, or staff changes, etc. and those with the money may have to honor deals with players going to schools other than their favorites or none at all for any number of reasons. They can still make money for the kids and themselves and they better have verifiable NIL results for theirentire stable if they want to avoid earning that booster only status. Not sure how the courts will view some of their revenue stream being comprised of donations from rank and file rather than earned income generated by marketing type efforts. Bet Sprye has spent more than a dollar on legal guidance. Can't say the kids have the right to earn the money and eliminate all paths to it because the entities leadership have alma maters and favorites.
 
Last edited:
#134
#134
Retroactive?? Really? What a load of (expletive deleted)

Bottom line, Saban et al don’t like the system, and want it curtailed so the gud-Ole-Boy system that infests Bammer can again function under the table more effectively than anyone else.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least that Jere Morehead (uga) was the committee chair. That trash program finally tastes success, and wants to shut the door on competition. Trash program, trash results.

Make no mistake, we are being set up as the poster boy to end the “abuses” of a system with no effective rules. If they want to set rules going forward, that’s fine, but the retroactivity of this is designed to send the message that the Bama and OSU crowd will NOT tolerate blatant attempts to compete with them when it comes to paying players.

If White and Tennessee do the usual Tennessee thing and roll over and show their belly, we are gonna get clobbered.
 
#135
#135
Last edited:
#136
#136
turbovol said:
The Supreme Court decision is a bit perplexing to me and has opened up a huge can of worms. It's fine to say that student-athletes should be
able to market themselves like anybody else, except for the fact that they are not just in the market; they're also students, or supposed to be. It's college--or used to be!

You've already effectively got an employer/employee relationship between universities and their student-athletes; in exchange for signing a NLI and getting a free education, you're obligated to practice, attend meetings and play in games. The notion that sprang up a decade or so ago that student-athletes were being exploited has always been complete nonsense: You're getting a four-year education worth $200K! Some exploitation!

Now, because NIL has no rules, university athletic departments are suddenly forced to become business agents for their players. And they have to do it or the players--many of whom are now starry-eyed about money--will transfer, or some booster/bizmen will do deals with players quietly. It's all rather grass, greedy and ridiculous now---not to mention that the athletic departments are also supposed to be paying the players for attending classes or getting a certain grade-point average! It's absurd. It all needs to be reigned in--but then major-college athletics was corrupted by money and business a long time ago, and now it's worse than ever and something of a circus.
Click to expand...
I think the "exploitation" angle came in with the NCAA's artificial salary "cap" at... $0. And the SCOTUS agreed by threatening antitrust litigation against the NCAA. The exploitation angle is further exacerbated when/if the NCAA steps in and tries to take marketing $$$ away from college athletes by trying to limit how much and/or from whom. Basically, you have a right to yourself. You have a right to freely make money from your name, image and likeness. If they try to limit that, the NCAA is artificially limiting the market and basically saying that they financially own the players.

It's bad mojo. The SCOTUS agreed.

It gets uglier if you give the appearance that you think you own a person in an industry with such high AA footprint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1, butchna and TheVolsFrog
#137
#137
VolArmy74 said:
There's another case proceeding through the courts now about NiL and NCAA rules. If the NCAA decides to fight it to the Supreme Court, we know how it will end.

"the NCAA's remaining compensation rules also raise serious questions under the antitrust laws."

That was the most damning statement of many from Kavanaugh. It's safe to say after a 9-0 vote in the prior case, that the NCAA will never win a case where they try and deny pay. Especially pay coming from outside the college. Kavanaugh pointed out its no more legal for them to do that than it would be for every hospital in the country to get together and slash pay for Healthcare workers to nothing. Kavanaugh pretty much said "you're losing the next lawsuit too."

The official NCAA stance the day after the ruling was "we embrace NiL. Bring it on!" Too late to back track now. Next stop is revenue sharing.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh didn't write the opinion of the Court though. He wrote a concurrence, which is for 1 guy, him. Gorsuch's opinion (which was the 9-0 opinion) said the antitrust laws prevented "unreasonable" restraints on trade, not every restraint on trade. The Opinion of the Court (the Gorsuch opinion) also agreed that the NCAA did not have to use the "least restrictive means to serve its legitimate business purposes". All that indicates that "reasonable" restraints will pass muster and that the NCAA has "a legitimate business purpose" in the Court's eye. That's what the next cases will be about, i.e. what are reasonable restrictions? Obviously, they can't restrict compensation entirely but there is an amount of regulation/restriction that is consistent with the antitrust laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#138
#138
Orange_Crush said:
I think the "exploitation" angle came in with the NCAA's artificial salary "cap" at... $0. And the SCOTUS agreed by threatening antitrust litigation against the NCAA. The exploitation angle is further exacerbated when/if the NCAA steps in and tries to take marketing $$$ away from college athletes by trying to limit how much and/or from whom. Basically, you have a right to yourself. You have a right to freely make money from your name, image and likeness. If they try to limit that, the NCAA is artificially limiting the market and basically saying that they financially own the players.

It's bad mojo. The SCOTUS agreed.

It gets uglier if you give the appearance that you think you own a person in an industry with such high AA footprint.
Click to expand...
Yup it's only a matter of time for schools.
Schools and coaches making millions off these kids, especially football but the players aren't allowed to make money and the school response is we're giving your a free ride.
My reply is F that, pay me and I'll pay for my schooling.
Here's the thing before NIL. Let's take Bryce Young if he wasn't able to get NIL. All over the sports media, calendars, Jersey numbers, memorabilia etc, even have a good social media following.. couldn't make a dime off it yet student Tyrone has 300K followers doing stupid stuff on Instagram, Youtube and twitter is making 6 figures from that and companies sponsoring him to advertise their product all because crazy Tyrone has 300K followers because of his name and likeness.

Yeah NCAA and schools better look at other means. Like transfer portals and switching schools to try and keep players in place on teams.
 
#139
#139
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Kavanaugh didn't write the opinion of the Court though. He wrote a concurrence, which is for 1 guy, him. Gorsuch's opinion (which was the 9-0 opinion) said the antitrust laws prevented "unreasonable" restraints on trade, not every restraint on trade. The Opinion of the Court (the Gorsuch opinion) also agreed that the NCAA did not have to use the "least restrictive means to serve its legitimate business purposes". All that indicates that "reasonable" restraints will pass muster and that the NCAA has "a legitimate business purpose" in the Court's eye. That's what the next cases will be about, i.e. what are reasonable restrictions? Obviously, they can't restrict compensation entirely but there is an amount of regulation/restriction that is consistent with the antitrust laws.
Click to expand...
You can't reasonable say Mr Football isn't worth $100K when his social media classmate makes $100K just for being who he is
Eventually some student and lawyer is going to sue schools stating they're more of an employee for the school than a student
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#140
#140
TheVolsFrog said:
You can't reasonable say Mr Football isn't worth $100K when his social media classmate makes $100K just for being who he is
Eventually some student and lawyer is going to sue schools stating they're more of an employee for the school than a student
Click to expand...
Again, what I suspect they are going to do, is what is already done with doctors and hospitals. Doctors are recruited to move places and set up practices by hospitals. There are regulations which prohibit hospitals from paying doctors more than "fair market value" or giving incentives for a doctor to move to an area which are "commercially unreasonable", etc. In the context of doctors and hospitals, what the government does not want, are hospitals buying up all the doctors to insure that they get all the patients and that their competitors get none. The government wants doctors spread out throughout the country so that people all over the country have access to health care. So what they do is they look at the contracts doctors enter into with hospitals and analyze whether it makes business sense on it's face. If the contract is a huge money loser for the hospital on it's face, the government will say "well, the reason you are willing to lose all that money on the doctor's salary or on benefits etc. is to insure that you get all the referrals or that your doctor doesn't go to the competition".

I suspect they'll follow a similar model which says, "gee Collective, you are paying Joe High School 2 million dollars for his NIL and he's never caught a pass in D-1? That's commercially unreasonable/not fair market value, what you are really paying for is for this kid to play for the university you say you aren't associated with, not for the value of his name, image and likeness". This argument will be considerably strengthened if there are clauses in the contract which require the kid to eat lunch every day and sign autographs at the Tuscaloosa deli, etc., something which makes it practically impossible for him to play anywhere other than Alabama. That's where I think they are going with this. I could be wrong but that's a legal framework that has held up in court for decades, that will accomplish their ends of clamping down on blatant pay for play. The Supreme Court opinion didn't rule out something like that, again the Supreme Court has seen that legal framework before and given it the thumbs up.
 
#141
#141
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, what I suspect they are going to do, is what is already done with doctors and hospitals. Doctors are recruited to move places and set up practices by hospitals. There are regulations which prohibit hospitals from paying doctors more than "fair market value" or giving incentives for a doctor to move to an area which are "commercially unreasonable", etc. In the context of doctors and hospitals, what the government does not want, are hospitals buying up all the doctors to insure that they get all the patients and that their competitors get none. The government wants doctors spread out throughout the country so that people all over the country have access to health care. So what they do is they look at the contracts doctors enter into with hospitals and analyze whether it makes business sense on it's face. If the contract is a huge money loser for the hospital on it's face, the government will say "well, the reason you are willing to lose all that money on the doctor's salary or on benefits etc. is to insure that you get all the referrals or that your doctor doesn't go to the competition".

I suspect they'll follow a similar model which says, "gee Collective, you are paying Joe High School 2 million dollars for his NIL and he's never caught a pass in D-1? That's commercially unreasonable/not fair market value, what you are really paying for is for this kid to play for the university you say you aren't associated with, not for the value of his name, image and likeness". This argument will be considerably strengthened if there are clauses in the contract which require the kid to eat lunch every day and sign autographs at the Tuscaloosa deli, etc., something which makes it practically impossible for him to play anywhere other than Alabama. That's where I think they are going with this. I could be wrong but that's a legal framework that has held up in court for decades, that will accomplish their ends of clamping down on blatant pay for play. The Supreme Court opinion didn't rule out something like that, again the Supreme Court has seen that legal framework before and given it the thumbs up.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Never catching a pass or shooting a ball doesn't matter. Before the rule change a HS kid could go straight to the NBA and never shot a ball of college or Pro ball. Some even had shoe contracts. The only ones that will be getting those top bucks are the very top players in the nation, especially QB's who will be the face of the their team which makes them more marketable right from the start. I can pretty much guarantee you that Spyre and the smart ones have all done their homework on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#142
#142
NCAA can’t say or do jack squat about players getting paid whatever anyone is willing to pay them. What they can control is the portal and transfer rules. With the right rules in place, a lot of the craziness will be reduced.
 
#143
#143
UT_Tix79 said:
NIL deals are supposed to be what a player earns, not a pre-arranged plan used for recruiting purposes. We have Nico $375k and he hadn’t earned anything, and we gave him 8 million over 4 years. That’s not NIL, that’s buying a player. I’m glad we did it, if not someone else would have. But, it’s not what NIL was supposed to be
Click to expand...
He hasn't been given $8 million over 4 years but a deal worth UP TO $8 million over 4 years. He has to do whatever is stipulated in the contract in order to earn the money. I think people are forgetting that Nico will still have to do something to earn the bulk of that money. As for the $300k+ to sign, he clearly already has some NIL value because he's one of the most well-known 2023 prospects. I don't see anything that's way off base yet. The worst case scenario is he gets all that money without really having an impact on the team. To do that, he would have to ride the bench for four years. He would probably transfer instead, which would effectively end his NIL deal (Spyre would let him out of it).
 
#144
#144
UT_Tix79 said:
NIL deals are supposed to be what a player earns, not a pre-arranged plan used for recruiting purposes. We have Nico $375k and he hadn’t earned anything, and we gave him 8 million over 4 years. That’s not NIL, that’s buying a player. I’m glad we did it, if not someone else would have. But, it’s not what NIL was supposed to be
Click to expand...

Spyre has made a valuation and believes Nico will generate more than 8M in advertising revenue. They are taking a risk that he will not. If he goes over that total everyone wins. If he stays under the number Spyre loses. This is the essence of free market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1, Gandalf and GrayWaterCanine
#145
#145
Spyre made an evaluation that $8m would net us the best QB this cycle. It has nothing to do with revenue, and you, I, Spyre, and the NCAA know that. But good, because if we hadn’t, someone else would have. We can “pretend” Spyre is doing all this on the up and up, because it’s us, but if this was any other school doing this, we’d be losing our minds.

Had we been favorites for a 5* QB, and Georgia offered him $8m and he committed to them, we’d be burning down forums asking the NCAA to fix NIL
 
#147
#147
utvols83 said:
He hasn't been given $8 million over 4 years but a deal worth UP TO $8 million over 4 years. He has to do whatever is stipulated in the contract in order to earn the money. I think people are forgetting that Nico will still have to do something to earn the bulk of that money. As for the $300k+ to sign, he clearly already has some NIL value because he's one of the most well-known 2023 prospects. I don't see anything that's way off base yet. The worst case scenario is he gets all that money without really having an impact on the team. To do that, he would have to ride the bench for four years. He would probably transfer instead, which would effectively end his NIL deal (Spyre would let him out of it).
Click to expand...
Yeah I keep posting that UP to $8m also and it keeps getting over looked by many and still saying he was paid $8m
But yeah Nico had very high earning potential
If his play lives up the hype, he has that persona, swag and ability to speak well that he will be easy to market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dadof2Vols
#148
#148
Sudden Impact said:
The NCAA Shot Itself in the Head (msn.com)

This is a long read but is somewhat worth it.
Noted in the Article referenced an 8 million dollar deal without any names.
This article also lays out the battlefield and how the inept NCAA failed to act early on.
Click to expand...
This is what I’ve been saying the NCAA can shake their fist and say whatever they want but once someone calls their bluff they’re screwed. They need to adjust to their current situation of being the ones bent over the barrel instead of the opposite.

Really interested to see what’s going to happen with USC though and the inducement they’ve been pulling with other schools recruits; apparently it wasn’t just the Pitt WR. It would seem like this is an area they can actually go after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dadof2Vols
#149
#149
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, what I suspect they are going to do, is what is already done with doctors and hospitals. Doctors are recruited to move places and set up practices by hospitals. There are regulations which prohibit hospitals from paying doctors more than "fair market value" or giving incentives for a doctor to move to an area which are "commercially unreasonable", etc. In the context of doctors and hospitals, what the government does not want, are hospitals buying up all the doctors to insure that they get all the patients and that their competitors get none. The government wants doctors spread out throughout the country so that people all over the country have access to health care. So what they do is they look at the contracts doctors enter into with hospitals and analyze whether it makes business sense on it's face. If the contract is a huge money loser for the hospital on it's face, the government will say "well, the reason you are willing to lose all that money on the doctor's salary or on benefits etc. is to insure that you get all the referrals or that your doctor doesn't go to the competition".

I suspect they'll follow a similar model which says, "gee Collective, you are paying Joe High School 2 million dollars for his NIL and he's never caught a pass in D-1? That's commercially unreasonable/not fair market value, what you are really paying for is for this kid to play for the university you say you aren't associated with, not for the value of his name, image and likeness". This argument will be considerably strengthened if there are clauses in the contract which require the kid to eat lunch every day and sign autographs at the Tuscaloosa deli, etc., something which makes it practically impossible for him to play anywhere other than Alabama. That's where I think they are going with this. I could be wrong but that's a legal framework that has held up in court for decades, that will accomplish their ends of clamping down on blatant pay for play. The Supreme Court opinion didn't rule out something like that, again the Supreme Court has seen that legal framework before and given it the thumbs up.
Click to expand...
Disagree. That power seems to be held through usage of Medicare and government programs. I can't see the hook they would use in this situation.
 
#150
#150
The NCAA cannot differentiate "inducement" from a private citizen researching and determining their market value in multiple situations, locations, and scenarios. They are grasping at straws. Potentially, they want to lose the fight so they can wash their hands of it and focus the blame elsewhere.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top