Yoo Hoo! It's time to end the NCAA investigation

#26

Ratvol

ETSU, UT, St. Louis Cardinals
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
684
Likes
1,230
#26
Uh oh. You should be prepared for the parade of Virtue Signaling Vol Fans who will inform you how horrible we were, that we should be absolutely slammed for what we did, and that you are stupid, naive, and silly to think otherwise.
Bring in the Killer Bees.

Go VOLS
 
#27

Gandalf

The Orange/White Wizard
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
3,815
Likes
9,618
#27
The US Supreme Court effectively ruled it's OK to pay players.
SCOTUS opinions are valid retroactively (i.e., as if this was always the law).
We self reported and cooperated to the max.
All parties involved were ejected from the program ASAP.
We've lost 2 recruiting classes because of the delays.
All facts have been known by the NCAA for a year.
Not happening because:

Every other football admin attending this class:


While UT is like:


and yeah, that guy behind us is the NCAA
 
#29

Winchester73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
63
Likes
83
#29
It was ok when they signed with MLB and the NBA and it isn't really about the kids age that has most people up in the air its that these kids are getting full scholarships, considered "amateur athletes" and wasn't done in the past. I think that most people don't get the concept of this NIL rule. Kids aren't going to get paid millions of dollars a year to play at a college. Will there be someone out there to pay a kid that, yes but not every 5* is going to get millions. The college can't broker a deal for a recruit but they can let kids know what deals are out for their athletes. Yes the sports are tied to the school but most of those schools are making millions a year off of those kids who can't even take a free cheeseburger without getting in trouble of some sort. Any other college kid can go out there and hold down a job and make millions while in college but why can't a student athlete, seems like a double standard to me.
Absolutely right about the free cheeseburger, etc. The rules have been WAY too restrictive. Like most things in life, it’s hard to find something that will work for every person/team EVERY time. My concern, and I think for most, is Pandora’s box has been opened to so many unknowns at this point. I’m saying this in general and not towards your post, but current portal rules, plus money, minus a “contract” … I don’t see that as good for the sport as we know it.
 
#30

uncle chewii

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
355
Likes
425
#30
Absolutely right about the free cheeseburger, etc. The rules have been WAY too restrictive. Like most things in life, it’s hard to find something that will work for every person/team EVERY time. My concern, and I think for most, is Pandora’s box has been opened to so many unknowns at this point. I’m saying this in general and not towards your post, but current portal rules, plus money, minus a “contract” … I don’t see that as good for the sport as we know it.
I know it isn't towards me, I'm just trying to play devils advocate on this. One thing about boxes is that the lid can be put back on again, not sealed but back on the box. It will take a couple of years to get the details ironed out and rules changed. I think that is what most people are hesitant about with this though is the unknown just like in anything else. The contract really isn't towards for the school but with the company using the athlete's name and stuff. I look at it as a good way to teach some of these kids responsibility before getting to the NFL and getting that big big money. They will learn they can't go out and act stupid because those companies will drop them when they do get in trouble. You will get some kids that will try and abuse the portal to get bigger deals but business people are savvy and there will be a point that they won't waste money on a kid that transfers or puts their name in the portal every year.
 
#31
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
12
Likes
7
#31
I’m totally convinced Pruitt was a mole that was sent here by Bama boosters to tear down our program
I have to agree. I mean why would you want to keep JG in at qb knowing the team wanted different. He would've been done when he called his own shot on the goal line at Alabama. Kept saying he gave us the best chance to win, ********!!!
 
Likes: 1985Vols
#32

DaddyChad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
16,863
Likes
16,514
#32
I don't really think anyone thinks what WE did is wrong. Jeremy Pruitt is obviously a moron. UT handled it very well. I haven't heard anyone say we didn't handle the situation well. The NCAA is very inconsistent in how they punish programs though, so who knows. They've already punished us by letting this cloud hang over our programs head for a year.
Time served at this point.
 
#34

DaddyChad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
16,863
Likes
16,514
#34
I have to agree. I mean why would you want to keep JG in at qb knowing the team wanted different. He would've been done when he called his own shot on the goal line at Alabama. Kept saying he gave us the best chance to win, ********!!!
Oh yes Pruitt was a super spy for Bama. 😂

We’re talking about the guy that doesn’t know what asparagus is.
 
#35

ArmchairQB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
265
Likes
510
#35
Which Supreme Court case nullified the NCAA by-laws restricting athletic if departments from paying athletes to attend the school?
Alston addressed it while not addressing it. Specifically:
"the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA's remaining compensation rules"
"there are serious questions whether the NCAA's remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny"
"the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification"
"it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules"

They were very specific in saying they weren't touching whether it was illegal for the NCAA to say it can prevent students from getting paid, and Alston was just about educational benefits. But Kavanaugh felt strongly enough about it to write his own concurrence and he eviscerated the NCAA in it.

Put another way, they didn't say "it's okay to pay players now", but Kavanaugh spelled it out for everyone that the NCAA is in dire straits whenever someone gets around to suing them over pay.
 
#36

VolInNW

Trapped in PAC 12 Country
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
2,785
Likes
7,456
#36
Which Supreme Court case nullified the NCAA by-laws restricting athletic if departments from paying athletes to attend the school?

Or is this just you publicly stating that you don't know what "NIL" actually means, or how it pertains to college sports?
couldn't have said it better myself
Theoden King also foresaw the Virtue Signaling..........

giphy-facebook_s.jpg
 
#40

overseasorange2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
6,532
Likes
3,408
#40
I don't really think anyone thinks what WE did is wrong. Jeremy Pruitt is obviously a moron. UT handled it very well. I haven't heard anyone say we didn't handle the situation well. The NCAA is very inconsistent in how they punish programs though, so who knows. They've already punished us by letting this cloud hang over our programs head for a year.

I don't think that much time was spent on the "Watergate" investigation.:rolleyes:
 
#42

Carp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
2,910
Likes
2,859
#42
No, but they can hand them a bag with an NIL deal inside of it instead. (you say TomAYto, I say Toma'to)
I mean that still isn't technically allowed either. Teams aren't supposed to be able to make any specific offers (though I'm quote sure it does happen) Either way, it wouldn't apply to us.
 
#43

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
11,435
Likes
22,974
#43
Alston addressed it while not addressing it. Specifically:
"the Court does not address the legality of the NCAA's remaining compensation rules"
"there are serious questions whether the NCAA's remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny"
"the NCAA must supply a legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules. As I see it, however, the NCAA may lack such a justification"
"it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules"

They were very specific in saying they weren't touching whether it was illegal for the NCAA to say it can prevent students from getting paid, and Alston was just about educational benefits. But Kavanaugh felt strongly enough about it to write his own concurrence and he eviscerated the NCAA in it.

Put another way, they didn't say "it's okay to pay players now", but Kavanaugh spelled it out for everyone that the NCAA is in dire straits whenever someone gets around to suing them over pay.
Kavanaugh probably feels that way personally, but that is not what was in the SC ruling on the case:

Kavanaugh wrote. "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

Kavanaugh's line of reasoning may suggest where the court might be heading, but it did not prevail Monday. Instead, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the unanimous court, focused his analysis largely on reinforcing the district court's ruling in 2019 and the Ninth Circuit decision last year.

"Some will think the district court did not go far enough," Gorsuch wrote. "By permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced education-related benefits, its decision may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools. Still, some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief.

Supreme Court upholds payments to athletes

The Court’s decision permits student-athletes to receive a variety of education-related benefits that go beyond the cost of college attendance, such as academic and graduation incentive awards, graduate-school scholarships, and paid, post-eligibility internships. That said, there is nothing that requires member schools to offer such benefits, nor are individual conferences prohibited from imposing their own restrictions.
Supreme Court Holds That Sherman Act Bars NCAA From Limiting Education-Related Benefits For Student-Athletes

Until the NCAA is called to task on how they define college athletes as 'unpaid amateurs' schools/conference can't just throw money at athletes outside of what the conferences themselves set as maximum permissible benefits, which as I recall is $5,980/year at the moment.

At the moment, a school still can't just pay a recruit $100,000 to attend their institution.
 
#47

ArmchairQB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2014
Messages
265
Likes
510
#47
Kavanaugh probably feels that way personally, but that is not what was in the SC ruling on the case:

Kavanaugh wrote. "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

Kavanaugh's line of reasoning may suggest where the court might be heading, but it did not prevail Monday. Instead, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the unanimous court, focused his analysis largely on reinforcing the district court's ruling in 2019 and the Ninth Circuit decision last year.

"Some will think the district court did not go far enough," Gorsuch wrote. "By permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced education-related benefits, its decision may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools. Still, some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief.
Supreme Court upholds payments to athletes

The Court’s decision permits student-athletes to receive a variety of education-related benefits that go beyond the cost of college attendance, such as academic and graduation incentive awards, graduate-school scholarships, and paid, post-eligibility internships. That said, there is nothing that requires member schools to offer such benefits, nor are individual conferences prohibited from imposing their own restrictions.
Supreme Court Holds That Sherman Act Bars NCAA From Limiting Education-Related Benefits For Student-Athletes

Until the NCAA is called to task on how they define college athletes as 'unpaid amateurs' schools/conference can't just throw money at athletes outside of what the conferences themselves set as maximum permissible benefits, which as I recall is $5,980/year at the moment.

At the moment, a school still can't just pay a recruit $100,000 to attend their institution.
It's going to be a colossal mess when someone does call the NCAA to task, like in a "this is pretty much of the end of things as anyone knows it" sort of a sense. It's probably the right thing for the student athletes in basketball and football who are enriching everyone but themselves, but it's going to be profoundly difficult to do right by those students without simultaneously killing a huge chunk of college sports in the process. I'm not looking forward to seeing that play out at all.
 
#48

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
11,435
Likes
22,974
#48
It's going to be a colossal mess when someone does call the NCAA to task, like in a "this is pretty much of the end of things as anyone knows it" sort of a sense. It's probably the right thing for the student athletes in basketball and football who are enriching everyone but themselves, but it's going to be profoundly difficult to do right by those students without simultaneously killing a huge chunk of college sports in the process. I'm not looking forward to seeing that play out at all.
Yeah, the longer it goes on with this limbo-land attempt of keeping them unpaid 'student-athletes', while allowing NIL and extended benefits from the schools, the more convoluted things will get.

Honestly, I don't think the schools are in any hurry to have their status change, because as soon as players start getting paid by institutions under a new classification, they will form a players union, and try to negotiate for a larger chunk of that TV revenue that Schools have been enjoying for decades now.
 
Likes: Devo182
#49

LWSVOL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
10,943
Likes
5,445
#49
The US Supreme Court effectively ruled it's OK to pay players.
SCOTUS opinions are valid retroactively (i.e., as if this was always the law).
We self reported and cooperated to the max.
All parties involved were ejected from the program ASAP.
We've lost 2 recruiting classes because of the delays.
All facts have been known by the NCAA for a year.
The NCAA did not get the Tennessee report until last month when Tennessee announced it was completed. They are in the process of reviewing it and have NOT yet issued a letter of allegations to Tennessee. Once they do that, Tennessee will have a very good idea (or know) if the NCAA agrees and accepts the internal investigation. Until that happens, Tennessee will continue to be negatively impacted on the recruiting trails.

The SCOTUS ruling has zero impact on the investigative process that Tennessee initiated and the NCAA has endorsed. Nor will it alter the NCAA's investigative process, no matter what we feel should be done.
 

VN Store




Top