I've screenshot and posted the Mandel article, I'm the only one who has. Mandel's the only person who has publicly said he has seen the contract. I don't think he's lying. He also quotes the lawyer who represented the athlete in the deal we all believe to be Nico-Spyre. That's the best source that is currently available, literally everything else is guesswork.
And yet my previous comment is still true. You haven't seen the contract, you're posting your assumptions about the contract based on what someone said ABOUT the contract, just like everyone else, and now you're bellyaching how annoyed you get when someone else does EXACTLY what you are doing.
For instance:
(1) You are assuming that the contract doesn't lock a recruit into a region in any form or fashion because the attorney said he'd never let his client accept financial "hooks" to *STAY* at a University. Yet all of us can see in the previous paragraph that the context seems to be "retaining" NIL rights after one or the other parties ends the contract. In other words, the attorney very well could have (I would add probably was) saying that he would never allow a client to sign a contract that signed over their NIL rights no matter what, because it would make his client too weak in the future to renegotiate a better deal for themselves, whether at the same university, or leaving for another.
(--) It's very easy to interpret that as though the contract may have induced the athlete to a region, with the unstated affect that it would induce them to a University, without ever mentioning the University. But the attorney would never let their client make themselves weak enough that they can't leave for better pastures if the opportunity arises. (The entire context seems to be that these contracts are actually inducing athletes to Universities, by the way. That's what it's all about. You're just forcing a very narrow view of quotes to claim otherwise.)
(2) You've argued the legal assumption that a contract with a regional marketing firm can't tie an athlete to a *region* while
not mentioning Universities specifically at all, because a judge would "see through" some concept of inducement that isn't even an issue between the contractual parties, and is never even mentioned in the contract (per the article). You've imported this because of your assumptions about the NCAA's wishes, which isn't in the contract.
That's all well and good. Lots of us love a good debate. It's half the reason we're here. But then to posture like you just did. It makes you look like a terrible ass.
