Does NIL and Transfer Portal equal Parity in CFB

[LWSVOL]

Claiming that legal definitions are irrelevant is delusional. Any argument based on those delusions is completely bogus. The legal definitions are the only ones that matter.

Check the tidal wave if federal court cases and injunctions that support my position.

is that your proof?

 

[ntxVOL]

Claiming that legal definitions are irrelevant is delusional. Any argument based on those delusions is completely bogus. The legal definitions are the only ones that matter.

Check the tidal wave if federal court cases and injunctions that support my position.

OK, what is the legal definition of pay for play? Please enlighten us all.

 

[Delmar]

Totally right. The little semantic game about "the schools are not paying the players" is silly. Proving a business relationship between NIL entities and their respective schools would be a simple matter in a legal setting. A business relationship involves any two parties where the actions of one benefits the business of the other. Even if the school is not literally giving money to the players, the NIL collectives ARE, and those payment benefit the school's business operations. The specific points may not be on paper, but that's not the only way you could prove the relationship - and once you establish the business relationship, a whole new world of legal possibilities emerge.

I mean, some of these NIL collectives are bathed in branded signage, apparel, school promotions, etc. Establishing that relationship would be trivial. This tongue-in-cheek "oh they're not paying them" stuff is nonsense.

And the money coming from NIL is largely funded by boosters of the school. Irrelevant if it’s coming directly from the school, directly from boosters or from an NIL collective. It’s money to the players for playing. Simple concept.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

And the money coming from NIL is largely funded by boosters of the school. Irrelevant if it’s coming directly from the school, directly from boosters or from an NIL collective. It’s money to the players for playing. Simple concept.

Getting back to the original topic, without some kind of controls on the market, schools willing to invest more money (directly or indirectly) to pay players will have the advantage.

Obviously, controls on the market are usually Antitrust violations so...... and it pains me to suggest it...... Congress is the only chance at bringing parity to what college athletics has become at the elite level.

Given how volatile politics is now, especially in a Presidential election year, I'm skeptical Congress will act.

I'll admit I'm cynical about politics but there's got to be "an angle" (read: money, political capital, coeds, something) in it for Congress to get them onboard with helping college athletics. I'm not seeing it.

 

[Voltopia]

Getting back to the original topic, without some kind of controls on the market, schools willing to invest more money (directly or indirectly) to pay players will have the advantage.

Obviously, controls on the market are usually Antitrust violations so...... and it pains me to suggest it...... Congress is the only chance at bringing parity to what college athletics has become at the elite level.

Given how volatile politics is now, especially in a Presidential election year, I'm skeptical Congress will act.

I'll admit I'm cynical about politics but there's got to be "an angle" (read: money, political capital, coeds, something) in it for Congress to get them onboard with helping college athletics. I'm not seeing it.

Agreed about Congress being the last line of defense with respect to maintaining a competitive system for students who want to compete. The schools failed to do it, the NCAA had no power to do it, and there's too many individual actors who are now free to upend things as they like, with no concern for the system's continued existence. None of these entities are steering the wagon, or at least, not in a way that'll keep the wagon running.

Also agree that they're incapable of acting on the matter, as they're largely incapable of acting on most things right now.

Actually, had Congress been capable, I don't think we would have ever gotten this far. Oh well. Sign of the times.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Agreed about Congress being the last line of defense with respect to maintaining a competitive system for students who want to compete. The schools failed to do it, the NCAA had no power to do it, and there's too many individual actors who are now free to upend things as they like, with no concern for the system's continued existence. None of these entities are steering the wagon, or at least, not in a way that'll keep the wagon running.

Also agree that they're incapable of acting on the matter, as they're largely incapable of acting on most things right now.

Actually, had Congress been capable, I don't think we would have ever gotten this far. Oh well. Sign of the times.

Because college sports is so popular, the media money is going to be driving the changes most likely and that, in turn, is driven by some very large companies.

As we saw with NASCAR, the big money funding ads can bend and shape, contort really, a sport in ugly ways.

In many ways we've seen the intrusion of "ad based" rules from TV timeouts, to ridiculous playing through smoke on the field, to various timing changes, etc, etc at all levels of sports.

I've stumbled on bowling try to "re-invent" itself after having watched PBA bowling with my Dad in black & white as a kid. "Modernized" bowling to make it exciting or whatever they're doing is just sad and you can feel the slick haired guys sitting in a boardroom somewhere saying "Let's try this and see if it gets more eyeballs and ad sales......"

I get it. Business is business. Ads make all media work but ugh....... I don't want to see college athletes dressed like NASCAR drivers so the sport can survive.

 

[Voltopia]

I get it. Business is business. Ads make all media work but ugh....... I don't want to see college athletes dressed like NASCAR drivers so the sport can survive.

I totally understand as well, but I sort of reject the part about business is business. I find the "they have to do it" mindset to be the assertion of those who want the professionalization of the sport, nothing more.

College sports never had to do any of this. They could have stopped at several points along the way, had a thriving college athletics ecosystem, and let it be. There were levels of existence that would have been completely acceptable. No one made them sell themselves out completely to TV networks. They chose to do all of that.

The excuses are plentiful, to be sure - someone did it first, and then some schools had more money, and so others had to follow suit. There's always directions to point our finger.

But collectively, the schools that drove the sport chose to take the money. They sold tomorrow off in exchange for whatever today is. It was a choice. It's always been a choice. It's never been forced upon the schools.

And to be clear, this isn't some sort of holier-than-thou condemnation from Mount Sanctimonious. I just think a spade should be called a spade. When push came to shove, they took the money, and couldn't help themselves but keep on taking more and more. And here we are. Bombarded by talking heads from ESPN frothing at the mouth about how "Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC is a good thing" and so on and so forth.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Trollio! Disses ad hominem attacks while making them! You're humorous. Please continue.

BTW, I cited a YouTube interview with Joe Namath where he alluded to being offered money to play. Of course that was 1960 before he signed with Bear at AL. You may view it at your leisure, though it refers to them as "illegal" so it probably doesn't meet your demanding standards for semantics.

But sure, it was never common. Despite many athletes stating that it happened, you can insist it was never common. They wouldn't possibly know.

You should go to school and learn discernment. Take the Logic 101 class, too.
Joe Namath? No NIL. You are addicted to false equivalencies. That's one us a twofer, as it's also a Strawman.

Ad hominems? Obviously you don't understand the difference between your childish name asking and my pointing out your logical fallacies.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Getting back to the original topic, without some kind of controls on the market, schools willing to invest more money (directly or indirectly) to pay players will have the advantage.

Obviously, controls on the market are usually Antitrust violations so...... and it pains me to suggest it...... Congress is the only chance at bringing parity to what college athletics has become at the elite level.

Given how volatile politics is now, especially in a Presidential election year, I'm skeptical Congress will act.

I'll admit I'm cynical about politics but there's got to be "an angle" (read: money, political capital, coeds, something) in it for Congress to get them onboard with helping college athletics. I'm not seeing it.

Schools willing to invest more?

Where is the UT line item budget for paying players?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

OK, what is the legal definition of pay for play? Please enlighten us all.

Easy. Neither of the definitions apply to what is being discussed here, because they refer to the person playing having to pay to be admitted to the playing arena or setting.

Ergo, the term "Pay to play" is a misnomer.

1. relating to or denoting the policy or practice of paying a fee to play a game at the time the game is played:
If you can’t afford a club membership, find a place that offers pay-to-play handball.

2. relating to or denoting an unethical or illicit arrangement in which payment is made by those who want certain privileges or advantages in such arenas as business, politics, sports, and entertainment:
a pay-to-play system encouraged by drug corporations.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I totally understand as well, but I sort of reject the part about business is business. I find the "they have to do it" mindset to be the assertion of those who want the professionalization of the sport, nothing more.

College sports never had to do any of this. They could have stopped at several points along the way, had a thriving college athletics ecosystem, and let it be. There were levels of existence that would have been completely acceptable. No one made them sell themselves out completely to TV networks. They chose to do all of that.

The excuses are plentiful, to be sure - someone did it first, and then some schools had more money, and so others had to follow suit. There's always directions to point our finger.

But collectively, the schools that drove the sport chose to take the money. They sold tomorrow off in exchange for whatever today is. It was a choice. It's always been a choice. It's never been forced upon the schools.

And to be clear, this isn't some sort of holier-than-thou condemnation from Mount Sanctimonious. I just think a spade should be called a spade. When push came to shove, they took the money, and couldn't help themselves but keep on taking more and more. And here we are. Bombarded by talking heads from ESPN frothing at the mouth about how "Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC is a good thing" and so on and so forth.

I'll agree that the schools made the choices that got us here. I've really chafed at people blaming the athletes for this mess when they've had the least power of anyone in what got us to this point.

Schools definitely chose money, chose business before academics, well before the current athlete's parents were born.

I'm as guilty as anyone. I wanted more basketball and football on TV. I wanted UT to thrive in the changes even if it meant $100 handshakes, $1000 handshakes. I wanted what looked like "success" for UT and the SEC vs other conferences financially.

Shortsighted? You betcha. If I'd known I'd be seeing this mess, I'd have turned off the TV and kept my transistor radio longer.

Not as dramatic as the Schiano uprising, but I can recall a lot fan pressure to "modernize" Tennessee's media presence once the schools sued to get out from under the NCAA's rules about media deals.

The NCAA's attempt to keep media rights from being an arms race was overwhelmed by fan desire to see more sports on TV. As fans, we won....... until we lost.

 

[turbovol]

The schools have gotten totally greedy and disgusting. College football has spun totally out of control--and it's rather disgusting to see.
One only has to look at A&M opting to pay $76 MILLION to get rid of a football coach because he wasn't winning enough games to please the pot-bellied rich male boosters who need the football team to affirm their self-worth apparently--a trait that applies to most major-college fans.

Look at the latest: We have members of the 1983 NC State men's basketball team who are suing because they think they should get NIL money. Outrageous and stupid. Is every player in every college sport over the last 50 years going to sue now? A couple of feckless judges have opened a massive can of worms.

And today we read that the Big12 conference is interested in selling naming rights TO THE CONFERENCE. So much absurd, pathetic greed! Name rights for the conference! What will it be called? "The Big Fritos Conference"? Apparently, the conference would be willing to drop the word "Big" from the conference name. So it might be "The Dr.Schol's 12 Conference"? "The Pampers Conference"" Something more masculine for football? "The Dodge Ram Conference"!

Then other conferences will follow suit as they won't allow a rival conference to make more money than they do. That's the instinct behind ALL of this nonsense. "We've gone to 14 teams to boost our ratings and media package!" "Oh, yea, we're expanding to 16 teams!" "Sixteen? We're going to 20!"

The SEC might become "The Ford F150 Conference." Yea! "It's a big matchup today between a top team from the Haagen Dazs Conference and the number 3 ranked team from the Baron's Pizza Conference. It should be a good one.

And then next? Next the university athletic nickhames will be dropped in favor of commercial naming deals. "And the Tennessee Gilette Razors are taking the field!" And now, listen to the boos, here comes the Alabama Coors Light team!....At halftime today, we'll be entertained by the Pride of the Dove Body Wash Marching Band."

What's pathetic is how the university presidents and chancellors are all signing off on all this bull$-it.

We also heard yesterday that the because it and/or schools may be forced to pay players, the NCAA is already considering expanding the NCAA BB tourney! Let's go to 80 teams! Make it 100! Is your team 10 games under 500? No worries--you're in! The tourney will last 3 months! "We want every school and every player to feel good about themselves and not fret about having their feelings hurt because they're not in the conference or making the money THEY FEEL they deserve."



Oh, my.

 

[#1fulmerite]

I’ve often wondered about those who, are still alive from the SMU days, feel about the NIL and college football landscape now?

 

[volfan102455]

I think Kirby will get tired of recruiting and re-recruiting 24/7 and try the NFL out within the next 5 years.

I think many coaches are going to tire of all this eventually.

 

[woodpusher]

You're pretty good at throwing out zero evidence claims that defy the facts and the legal definitions.

I've challenged you to prove your claims. You can't. Your opinion isn't proof. Your conflating NIL with salaries is ludicrous.
Unsourced statements about what unnamed third or fourth paries supposedly said or did isn't proof. It's not even legit evidence.

Then you made two claims that are mutually exclusive. Something that isn't pay for play can't simultaneously be pay for play.

Strangely enough, you're both right.

 

[swampfoxfan]

No, it isn't. It's pay for endorsements.

??? That's what it is supposed to be, that's not what it is. How often do you see any endorsements?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

??? That's what it is supposed to be, that's not what it is. How often do you see any endorsements?

Google is your friend. Tons of endorsement merch out there.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

??? That's what it is supposed to be, that's not what it is. How often do you see any endorsements?

And...that's a moot point. NIL collectives pay what they think the athlete branding is worth.
They also have the chance tosje the money back from players that go pro.

 

[swampfoxfan]

What you haven't seen isn't pertinent. He's getting more NIL than their starter, last I heard. No NIL collective is going to pay a bench warmer that kind of $$ just to keep him from transferring. They aren't that stupid.

They sell tons of Manning endorsed merch, too. Like this.

If his NIL is 2 mil annually that works out to about 50,000 t shirts annually, considering every teammates also has NIL Texas could clothe all of china

 

[ntxVOL]

Google is your friend. Tons of endorsement merch out there.

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[OrangeBeachVol]

The SEC might become "The Ford F150 Conference." Yea! "It's a big matchup today between a top team from the Haagen Dazs Conference and the number 3 ranked team from the Baron's Pizza Conference. It should be a good one.

And then next? Next the university athletic nickhames will be dropped in favor of commercial naming deals. "And the Tennessee Gilette Razors are taking the field!" And now, listen to the boos, here comes the Alabama Coors Light team!....At halftime today, we'll be entertained by the Pride of the Dove Body Wash Marching Band."

I know you were venting Turbo but these 2 comments got a big chuckle. Classic.

 

[swampfoxfan]

Google is your friend. Tons of endorsement merch out there.

How many endorsements have YOU seen, I have not more than 5 or 6. As there is 1,000s of NIL deals, it is pay for play.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

How many endorsements have YOU seen, I have not more than 5 or 6. As there is 1,000s of NIL deals, it is pay for play.

Show me the line item in the University budget that pays players. I'll pop some popcorn and wait.

Show me a business that pays anyone that to work for someone else.

Ergo, it's not pay for play.

 

[swampfoxfan]

Show me the line item in the University budget that pays players. I'll pop some popcorn and wait.

Show me a business that pays anyone that to work for someone else.

Ergo, it's not pay for play.

Can't answer the question I asked.

 

[swampfoxfan]

Show me the line item in the University budget that pays players. I'll pop some popcorn and wait.

Show me a business that pays anyone that to work for someone else.

Ergo, it's not pay for play.

The university has never paid Boosters always have.

All the individuals and businesses that contribute to NIL

Ergo it is play for pay

Not going to continue arguing with an idiot troll, you have to much experience.