Recruiting Forum Football Talk IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

VOLSONLY

👈What he wrote
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
5,831
Likes
37,948
Pitts are very good dogs. They are big sweethearts, but have gotten a horrible reputation because of idiots who train them to be dangerous. Kind of like guns in that way. If you use a pittbull for violence, they will be violent. If you use them the right way and give them love and train them to be sweet boys and good girls then that is what they will be. All in how they are treated.
You sir are correct. I’m way to attached to Bo lol
1C932D19-F8F8-40AF-8933-1C54E7180A2C.jpeg
 

Devo182

"Well Known Member" TWSS
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
28,712
Likes
90,456
For like the 10th time, NO. SCOTUS. HAS. NOT. My entire point all along has been to clear up this exact thought. The NCAA has never been challenged in court re: NIL regulations. Not one single time. Which is why they still have a full arsenal to regulate. They have lost twice solely based on a cap of educational benefits. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. I feel like I am talking to a child.



Well the NCAA sounds like it is trying to regulate SPYRE and collectives acting as a booster proxy for the school. They announced it in May. What comes of it? I am not sure, it seems on very shaky legal grounds. But the NCAA sent guidance to member schools that collectives are boosters, and boosters cannot have contact with prospective S-As.

But more to the point I think you are trying to make. I have been very clear on this point multiple times. You are correct that the NCAA can't regulate a private contract between two private entities. They cannot say "SPYRE may offer only X." I never claimed they could. But that still does not mean that the NCAA cannot regulate the athletes attempting to play college sports. And that is exactly where the regulations will be aimed. The rule will be something along the lines of a cap on the player: "Athlete may not make over X in a year to maintain amateur eligibility" or "Players are in eligible to receive inducements for NIL until they have completed X amount of class in a satisfactory manner."
Your distinction is interesting and vital.

That said, the NCAA trying to push a reasonably low salary cap, while these "amateur coaches" (lol) are making $10mm/year PLUS their own NIL is going to be hilarious to see...especially as NFL teams, in a semi-free market, are paying 53-man rosters 25-30x their HC, on top of their players' own NIL money. It just looks ridiculous for a CFB player's income being limited, just as their coach's is unlimited and at an absurd multiple of the players'.
 

Cosmo Kramer

I love Beer🍻🍻
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
9,114
Likes
79,691
Pitts are very good dogs. They are big sweethearts, but have gotten a horrible reputation because of idiots who train them to be dangerous. Kind of like guns in that way. If you use a pittbull for violence, they will be violent. If you use them the right way and give them love and train them to be sweet boys and good girls then that is what they will be. All in how they are treated.
Same as German Shepherds and Rottweilers. Friends of ours have 2 pit bulls and they are great dogs
 
Last edited:

MKEvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
132
Likes
278
Your distinction is interesting and vital.

That said, the NCAA trying to push a reasonably low salary cap, while these "amateur coaches" (lol) are making $10mm/year PLUS their own NIL is going to be hilarious to see...especially as NFL teams, in a semi-free market, are paying 53-man rosters 25-30x their HC, on top of their players' own NIL money. It just looks ridiculous for a CFB player's income being limited, just as their coach's is unlimited and at an absurd multiple of the players'.
Oh it totally would, and I think it would look ridiculous too. I can't say for certain but I think the NCAA is much more concerned about "money as an inducement" than a kid exercising his rights of publicity (traditional marketing/sponsorship). So to me, I'd think an age restriction would be the most likely route the NCAA would go rather than a cap on amateur-eligible earnings. I also think the age restriction would be more legally defensible.
 

Devo182

"Well Known Member" TWSS
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
28,712
Likes
90,456
We know we can whip Andy’s azz
Exactly.

The teams most likely to win it all in the past 23 years are #2 and #3 seeds. Get rid of em and our odds increase.

Vandy ain't shiz. We should be all for lucky, lesser teams to move forward. Top-16 seeds are far and away most likely to upset us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store




Top