‘Power T’ flag outside the federal courthouse.

#130
#130
madbamahater said:
No one is fishing, but for the NCAA to catch the big one, they need to deem Yea Alabama, Classic City Collective, On To Victory, Bayou Tradition, Florida Victorious, Garnet Trust, The 15 Club and ALL other collectives as "boosters" for the entire NCAA membership. How can they just say Spyre is a booster, but none of the others? If all collectives are classified as "boosters", then every single NCAA member in every sports are openly breaking the rules and all NCAA members need to be put on probation at the exact same time, effective immediately.
Click to expand...
Trying to get Tennessee is step 1. They're trying to establish their control that is currently very questionable in the NIL world. If they are successful other schools will likely be investigated......eventually maybe. But they are absolutely trying to use Tennessee as their example. And they would try to make the penalties harsh.
 
#131
#131
Snapper58 said:
While we haven't seen a notice of allegations against UT, It seems to me that if the NCAA was trying to say Spyre was a booster, then even the contract they had paying NICO starting in high school would be a problem even though it was written under Califonia rules. This whole deal is confusing and even the Lawer for NCAA couldn't differentiate between what was allowed and not allowed in court. If thier own lawyer could't explain it how can Spyre, UT, or the recruit understand it.
Click to expand...
If Spyre is a booster, then pretty much every collective in the country should be considered "boosters".
 
  • Like
Reactions: MountainDooley and Woodlawn VOL
#133
#133
kiddiedoc said:
I mean: Tennessee is literally leading the nation in the fight for the rights of young athletes, is receiving tons of support and attention, and there's a huge Power T flag in Greneville on display.

And this is a bad thing?
Click to expand...
It SEEMS to me that the NCAA is fighting uphill against the SCOTUS ruling trying to restrict a player from maximizing his NIL potential. Just narrowed it to BEFORE he signs.

I firmly believe that they will pivot to minimizing the impact of unlimited big money involvement regardless of if it is negotiated before HS signing day, during first year, or after entry into the portal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#134
#134
madbamahater said:
No one said they can pass laws, as in laws of the land. Organizations have bylaws. Churches have bylaws, HOAs have bylaws, little league sports associations have bylaws. Tennessee voluntary joined the NCAA and the NCAA has rules to follow in order to participate in their league (organization, association, etc).

The NFL has rules (bylaws). They are governed by a commissioner and committee. They enforce their rules or laws all the time and they levy penalties against rule breakers, like coaches, players, owners, etc.

I am not suggesting UT broke any of their rules, I don't believe you can break any rules when there isn't a rule to be broken.

I guess what is not clear to lots of people (myself included) is that what rule specifically is the NCAA stating UT violated? I guess I am just missing something.

Can someone lay out some fact based information as to the actual accusations against UT by the NCAA?
Click to expand...
They can have 2028389 by-laws but they can't violate actual laws. Thus we are in court saying the NCAA is breaking actual laws trying to enforce their rules.
 
#135
#135
VolArmy74 said:
They can have 2028389 by-laws but they can't violate actual laws. Thus we are in court saying the NCAA is breaking actual laws trying to enforce their rules.
Click to expand...
Is the NCAA actively involved in a suit to establish what a booster is legally and whether or not a collective is a booster, or are they just saying.....hey we say collectives are boosters....and collectives are saying no we aren't boosters....????

Does the state of Tennessee have any current laws that define and govern this particular pinpoint issue? If not, call your congressman....
 
#136
#136
madbamahater said:
Is the NCAA actively involved in a suit to establish what a booster is legally and whether or not a collective is a booster, or are they just saying.....hey we say collectives are boosters....??
Click to expand...
The latter, I believe.
 
#137
#137
TheDeeble said:
Trying to get Tennessee is step 1. They're trying to establish their control that is currently very questionable in the NIL world. If they are successful other schools will likely be investigated......eventually maybe. But they are absolutely trying to use Tennessee as their example. And they would try to make the penalties harsh.
Click to expand...
But now they should see that is going to be met with harsh resistance and public opinion is not on their side. GBO
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#138
#138
GUNTERSVOL said:
It SEEMS to me that the NCAA is fighting uphill against the SCOTUS ruling trying to restrict a player from maximizing his NIL potential. Just narrowed it to BEFORE he signs.

I firmly believe that they will pivot to minimizing the impact of unlimited big money involvement regardless of if it is negotiated before HS signing day, during first year, or after entry into the portal.
Click to expand...
They can't. That would be an federal law violation for restraint of trade. The Sherman Antitrust Act says the NCAA can't limit NIL.
 
#140
#140
LouderVol said:
which is why the states are going after the NCAA in our case, and not the schools themselves.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I think you may have some states waiting to see which way this goes as far as the injunction. Think you could see some other suits appear soon
 
#141
#141
So for any that are willing to give a guess, do you expect a ruling on the injunction more likely tomorrow versus today? I know they said expect a ruling in a few days so I am figuring Friday would probably be the time. GBO
 
#142
#142
S.C. OrangeMan said:
They can't. That would be an federal law violation for restraint of trade. The Sherman Antitrust Act says the NCAA can't limit NIL.
Click to expand...
Sit back and watch, IF IF IF the membership of the NCAA self impose restrictions (Caps) on how many NIL dollars will be allowed on each official roster they will be able to do so just like they can't deny any kid the opportunity to become a D1 scholarship athlete, but they can restrict how many can be on each MEMBER team. The player just has to find a school that will accept them as a counter and/or accept the NIL dollar hit. Once again, very similar to there no longer being a cap on how many visits ANY player can have, but very definitely limits on how many visits each school can extend. If they can show a need for competitive balance and show that every player will be welcomed into the NCAA SOMEWHERE with their NIL deal OF ANY SIZE, it will fly. It is not singling out any player or any school.

They are and have been trying to limit the timing of the collectives making those deals and that will be in fact a loser. I don't understand their different position on before signing out of HS vs later in their careers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols33 and CSVol
#143
#143
madbamahater said:
Is the NCAA actively involved in a suit to establish what a booster is legally and whether or not a collective is a booster, or are they just saying.....hey we say collectives are boosters....and collectives are saying no we aren't boosters....????

Does the state of Tennessee have any current laws that define and govern this particular pinpoint issue? If not, call your congressman....
Click to expand...
The NCAA is saying now that even though rules weren't in place when Nico flew on the plane, they are going by different rules to prosecute Tennessee. It would be akin to receiving a speeding ticket for going 55 in a 40 zone, even though the speed limit hadn't been applied to that road when you were driving 55.

Notice the NCAA allegations found absolutely no violations by anyone in the UT coaching staff or administration. They are going solely after the NIL collective but are trying to penalize Tennessee for it.

The NCAA also contends that they are allowed to dictate what two private parties discuss in a business meeting. I.E. player X can't ask collective Y what the value of their NIL is in City Z. They have to take the job in City Z, then try and determine value once they are locked in to that school.

The NCAA's rules are in violation of state and federal laws.

I was stunned that the NCAA was dumb enough to admit in court that the player resource they referenced was the On3 website that lists NIL valuations as supposedly being adequate vs actually being able to discuss the matter with the collective. They were also epically stupid in that they weren't able to correctly explain their own rules that they expect high school kids to follow, and they admitted their actions did cause harm to student athletes, but they (the NCAA) didn't believe it was a lot of harm.

They are going to get dunked on, and dunked on hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#144
#144
GUNTERSVOL said:
Sit back and watch, IF IF IF the membership of the NCAA self impose restrictions (Caps) on how many NIL dollars will be allowed on each official roster they will be able to do so just like they can't deny any kid the opportunity to become a D1 scholarship athlete, but they can restrict how many can be on each MEMBER team. The player just has to find a school that will accept them as a counter and/or accept the NIL dollar hit. Once again, very similar to there no longer being a cap on how many visits ANY player can have, but very definitely limits on how many visits each school can extend. If they can show a need for competitive balance and show that every player will be welcomed into the NCAA SOMEWHERE with their NIL deal OF ANY SIZE, it will fly. It is not singling out any player or any school.

They are and have been trying to limit the timing of the collectives making those deals and that will be in fact a loser. I don't understand their different position on before signing out of HS vs later in their careers.
Click to expand...
There are way too many problems with your scenario. NIL is heavily based on location. Signing an NIL deal with say, Spyre, then committing to play at Nebraska because they were under the cap is detrimental to both the player AND Spyre. Capping NIL will never work. Ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullet20 and S.C. OrangeMan
#145
#145
jcvols24 said:
There are way too many problems with your scenario. NIL is heavily based on location. Signing an NIL deal with say, Spyre, then committing to play at Nebraska because they were under the cap is detrimental to both the player AND Spyre. Capping NIL will never work. Ever.
Click to expand...
It's also highly unrealistic and unethical. Why should a group of NCAA bureaucrats get to tell kids how much they can make in the private market on their name?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullet20, S.C. OrangeMan and MountainDooley
#146
#146
VolArmy74 said:
The NCAA is saying now that even though rules weren't in place when Nico flew on the plane, they are going by different rules to prosecute Tennessee. It would be akin to receiving a speeding ticket for going 55 in a 40 zone, even though the speed limit hadn't been applied to that road when you were driving 55.

Notice the NCAA allegations found absolutely no violations by anyone in the UT coaching staff or administration. They are going solely after the NIL collective but are trying to penalize Tennessee for it.

The NCAA also contends that they are allowed to dictate what two private parties discuss in a business meeting. I.E. player X can't ask collective Y what the value of their NIL is in City Z. They have to take the job in City Z, then try and determine value once they are locked in to that school.

The NCAA's rules are in violation of state and federal laws.

I was stunned that the NCAA was dumb enough to admit in court that the player resource they referenced was the On3 website that lists NIL valuations as supposedly being adequate vs actually being able to discuss the matter with the collective. They were also epically stupid in that they weren't able to correctly explain their own rules that they expect high school kids to follow, and they admitted their actions did cause harm to student athletes, but they (the NCAA) didn't believe it was a lot of harm.

They are going to get dunked on, and dunked on hard.
Click to expand...
GUNTERSVOL said:
Sit back and watch, IF IF IF the membership of the NCAA self impose restrictions (Caps) on how many NIL dollars will be allowed on each official roster they will be able to do so just like they can't deny any kid the opportunity to become a D1 scholarship athlete, but they can restrict how many can be on each MEMBER team. The player just has to find a school that will accept them as a counter and/or accept the NIL dollar hit. Once again, very similar to there no longer being a cap on how many visits ANY player can have, but very definitely limits on how many visits each school can extend. If they can show a need for competitive balance and show that every player will be welcomed into the NCAA SOMEWHERE with their NIL deal OF ANY SIZE, it will fly. It is not singling out any player or any school.

They are and have been trying to limit the timing of the collectives making those deals and that will be in fact a loser. I don't understand their different position on before signing out of HS vs later in their careers.
Click to expand...
idk how many times people have to post what you’re suggesting is illegal. You can’t cap a players market value in their image. There is no example of this existing, the nfl cap you’ve said in the past is a salary cap. Never in the history did a professional league tell Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or hell Michael Jordan how much they could make in advertising and marketing their image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullet20, S.C. OrangeMan, DrTNT and 1 other person
#147
#147
GUNTERSVOL said:
Sit back and watch, IF IF IF the membership of the NCAA self impose restrictions (Caps) on how many NIL dollars will be allowed on each official roster they will be able to do so just like they can't deny any kid the opportunity to become a D1 scholarship athlete, but they can restrict how many can be on each MEMBER team. The player just has to find a school that will accept them as a counter and/or accept the NIL dollar hit. Once again, very similar to there no longer being a cap on how many visits ANY player can have, but very definitely limits on how many visits each school can extend. If they can show a need for competitive balance and show that every player will be welcomed into the NCAA SOMEWHERE with their NIL deal OF ANY SIZE, it will fly. It is not singling out any player or any school.

They are and have been trying to limit the timing of the collectives making those deals and that will be in fact a loser. I don't understand their different position on before signing out of HS vs later in their careers.
Click to expand...
Again, they can't. It's a violation of federal law. It's an illegal restraint of trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, Delmar, DaddyChad and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top