Excellent white paper on NCAA legal position

[OldVol]

The crux of the NCAA’s position is that we are guilty until proven innocent. This goes against the very spirit of American Jurisprudence. Innocent until proven guilty. In an NCAA investigation, performed in a vacuum, the defendant has all of the burden. In an open court, the burden is on the accuser to prove their case. With NIL already being the LAW of the land, no set of arbitrary rules conjured prior to the new LAW of the land ruling stands any chance of superceeding that law with outdated rules made OBSOLETE by the new law lifting limitations to NIL.

 

[chuckiepoo]

It seems appropriate to this case to include a divorce lawyer on the legal team.

View attachment 617139

…don’t encourage him…

 

[TopDog4TN]

It's not about UT. The issue is whether all universities wish to have a governing body that establishes rules, and then
enforces its rules, or whether it wants no rules and anything goes.

The law's firm's presumption of guilt line, which it goes on and on about, is nonsense. The NCAA investigates if it has information suggesting that
rules have been, or are, being violated.

The NCAA decided at the beginning of last year that it wanted to tighten NIL rules and get NIL out of recruiting, since that was not the original purpose of NIL. It wants NIL deals to be arranged only after a prospect has signed with a school. I think this is a notably sensible idea and move--and anybody who doesn't agree is crazy, in my opinion.

Why would UT--or any major program--want a recruiting environment that features bidding wars for top prospects? Is there an advantage for UT--or any other of the 50 major programs in America--in such a system? Do fans really think UT is going to outbid Alabama, Texas, A&M, OSU, Michigan or any combination of 5/10/20 major programs who might all be interested in any or all, say, top 100 recruits? Is the UT collective going to raise more money than the other 50 schools? No, it is not--Texas A&M is crazy and rich enough to give $76 million to a fired coach. And they, in theory, will not out-raise us. Some programs will certainly raise more money than others; because some will have more crazy, well-heeled fans. What exactly would be the point of such a system: Our rich old boosters can outbid your rich old boosters? Yea, we can throw $2 million at some 18-year-old top prospect and outbid others for one guy---and we in turn will get outbid by many other schools for many other players. So again, what is the point? This is what the schools and the fans want recruiting and college football to become? It's stupid--it's seedy.

Forget the supposed investigation of UT. The NCAA changed its NIL rules at the start of 2023; some collectives/schools did not adjust to the new rules outlawing contact/deal offers with prospects, and the NCAA is attempting to enforce the new rules. It's investigating FSU, us and others. The investigation is not the point--that will be resolved, probably will little or no damage to UT given that there is apparently so much confusion and chaos in college football these days. The big issue is what do ALL the major schools and the NCAA want to do moving forward. What do they want college football to be about.

The coaches don't like this NIL system--and why should they? It's lunacy. And why would fans want to donate their hard-earned money to their favorite collective so that it can attempt to bribe high-school prospects when 1) the prospect might not even pan out; and 2, if he does pan out, he might very well transfer in a year or two. Anybody who thinks that turning high-schoolers into money-grubbing mercenaries is what college, and college football, should be about is daft and does not know anything about the idea of college in the first place.

UT is not gaining any advantages from the current system of bidding for prospects. Nor is anybody else. It's just devolved into 40/50 collectives running around desperately throwing money at the same top prospects like horny patrons at a strip club. It's unseemly. Everybody will win a scattered few--as we landed Nico by showering him with money-- and lose a helluva lot. And meantime, a lot of money will be wasted corrupting kids. High-school prospects only have value now because NIL came along--as a benefit for CURRENT college players--and then the crazy boosters/collectives jumped in and dragged it down to high school.

Recruiting should be about selling your tradition, your coaches, your facilities, your academics and fans--in the same way that Peyton Manning once chose to sign with the Vols--not who's get the most crazy rich boosters willing to try and outbid 30 rivals. It's stupid.

I'm sure that the new SEC/Big10 advisory group will give this a lot of thought--and they and others can think about what kind of sport, with what level of integrity, they want.

Although I, and most other people would agree with your sentiment of what recruiting should be and what NIL was intended for....making that actually happen is a different story.

The sole reason NIL is now legal is because not allowing NIL breaks federal anti trust law. With that being said part of anti trust law is being able to maximize your potential monetary gains. Shopping around for the best offer is part of maximizing the amount of money you can get. So any rule that would stop a recruit from doing so before committing would break federal law. Companies like Spyre can now invest donated money into a athlete, give them a guaranteed dollar amount, and make money in return for doing it. How do you stop that? It would take rewriting law, or creating a subsection within the law that solely partains to Universities and college athletes. I dont know that would still be feasible to implement new law even without violating rights.

 

[Mustng959]

Matlock was already committed elsewhere

Maybe we can get Erin Reagan on BlueBloods!

 

[butchna]

Maybe we can get Erin Reagan on BlueBloods!

Tom Brady GOT her…pregnant.

 

[chatt.vol]

It's not about UT. The issue is whether all universities wish to have a governing body that establishes rules, and then
enforces its rules, or whether it wants no rules and anything goes.

The law's firm's presumption of guilt line, which it goes on and on about, is nonsense. The NCAA investigates if it has information suggesting that
rules have been, or are, being violated.

The NCAA decided at the beginning of last year that it wanted to tighten NIL rules and get NIL out of recruiting, since that was not the original purpose of NIL. It wants NIL deals to be arranged only after a prospect has signed with a school. I think this is a notably sensible idea and move--and anybody who doesn't agree is crazy, in my opinion.

Why would UT--or any major program--want a recruiting environment that features bidding wars for top prospects? Is there an advantage for UT--or any other of the 50 major programs in America--in such a system? Do fans really think UT is going to outbid Alabama, Texas, A&M, OSU, Michigan or any combination of 5/10/20 major programs who might all be interested in any or all, say, top 100 recruits? Is the UT collective going to raise more money than the other 50 schools? No, it is not--Texas A&M is crazy and rich enough to give $76 million to a fired coach. And they, in theory, will not out-raise us. Some programs will certainly raise more money than others; because some will have more crazy, well-heeled fans. What exactly would be the point of such a system: Our rich old boosters can outbid your rich old boosters? Yea, we can throw $2 million at some 18-year-old top prospect and outbid others for one guy---and we in turn will get outbid by many other schools for many other players. So again, what is the point? This is what the schools and the fans want recruiting and college football to become? It's stupid--it's seedy.

Forget the supposed investigation of UT. The NCAA changed its NIL rules at the start of 2023; some collectives/schools did not adjust to the new rules outlawing contact/deal offers with prospects, and the NCAA is attempting to enforce the new rules. It's investigating FSU, us and others. The investigation is not the point--that will be resolved, probably will little or no damage to UT given that there is apparently so much confusion and chaos in college football these days. The big issue is what do ALL the major schools and the NCAA want to do moving forward. What do they want college football to be about.

The coaches don't like this NIL system--and why should they? It's lunacy. And why would fans want to donate their hard-earned money to their favorite collective so that it can attempt to bribe high-school prospects when 1) the prospect might not even pan out; and 2, if he does pan out, he might very well transfer in a year or two. Anybody who thinks that turning high-schoolers into money-grubbing mercenaries is what college, and college football, should be about is daft and does not know anything about the idea of college in the first place.

UT is not gaining any advantages from the current system of bidding for prospects. Nor is anybody else. It's just devolved into 40/50 collectives running around desperately throwing money at the same top prospects like horny patrons at a strip club. It's unseemly. Everybody will win a scattered few--as we landed Nico by showering him with money-- and lose a helluva lot. And meantime, a lot of money will be wasted corrupting kids. High-school prospects only have value now because NIL came along--as a benefit for CURRENT college players--and then the crazy boosters/collectives jumped in and dragged it down to high school.

Recruiting should be about selling your tradition, your coaches, your facilities, your academics and fans--in the same way that Peyton Manning once chose to sign with the Vols--not who's get the most crazy rich boosters willing to try and outbid 30 rivals. It's stupid.

I'm sure that the new SEC/Big10 advisory group will give this a lot of thought--and they and others can think about what kind of sport, with what level of integrity, they want.

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong?

It's not about having someone enforce rules that they agreed on. It's about having guidelines that changed constantly with no clarification on how to follow enforced.

You claim the NCAA doesn't investigate without information. I believe you are wrong just for the fact they were already there. They wanted to go after NIL and even though they went through 1000s of phone records and emails without finding an infractions they still decided to proceed. You said it yourself they implemented a rule in 2023 and are trying to hold UT in violation of the rule for something that happened in 2022. Laws don't work like that.

You and the NCAA are wrong and no matter what rule they pass they can't break federal law.

 

[Jackcrevol]

It seems appropriate to this case to include a divorce lawyer on the legal team.

View attachment 617139

Like a DUI Attorney coaster at the bar.

 

[tennrich1]

Although I, and most other people would agree with your sentiment of what recruiting should be and what NIL was intended for....making that actually happen is a different story.

The sole reason NIL is now legal is because not allowing NIL breaks federal anti trust law. With that being said part of anti trust law is being able to maximize your potential monetary gains. Shopping around for the best offer is part of maximizing the amount of money you can get. So any rule that would stop a recruit from doing so before committing would break federal law. Companies like Spyre can now invest donated money into a athlete, give them a guaranteed dollar amount, and make money in return for doing it. How do you stop that? It would take rewriting law, or creating a subsection within the law that solely partains to Universities and college athletes. I dont know that would still be feasible to implement new law even without violating rights.

Yes you nailed it. The ruling by the SCOTUS made pretty much everything we did in the past a violation of one’s ability to earn money based on NIL as it pertains to recruiting. The law doesn’t deal with “feelings” or one’s sense of right or wrong. It’s a clear ruling by the Court and ANYTHING we OR the NCAA try to do to contain that is a violation of the ruling. IMO ….it’s just that simple.

 

[Jackcrevol]

Yes you nailed it. The ruling by the SCOTUS made pretty much everything we did in the past a violation of one’s ability to earn money based on NIL as it pertains to recruiting. The law doesn’t deal with “feelings” or one’s sense of right or wrong. It’s a clear ruling by the Court and ANYTHING we OR the NCAA try to do to contain that is a violation of the ruling. IMO ….it’s just that simple.

Get a sense that the Court doesnt want to get granular on this topic.

IOW, the Courts have said what they've said. It will be interesting to see if they're in a bad mood - so to speak - on the matter.

 

[MemphisVol77]

@turbovol
First off, like @chatt.vol explained a few posts ago, you're wrong. I agree with his points. The NCAA selectively enforces, investigates without information(or probable cause), and is trying enforce arbitrary rules retroactively.

Do you realize that as of yet, UT isn't even apart of the lawsuit? The present lawsuit is the state of Tennessee and Virginia saying "according to SCOTUS, you are breaking the law" to the NCAA. No matter how much you opine about the 'the good ol'-days', or posit altruistic idealism wherein all teams agree to NIL rules, that's presently illegal according to SCOTUS.

Why would UT--or any major program--want a recruiting environment that features bidding wars for top prospects? Is there an advantage for UT--or any other of the 50 major programs in America--in such a system? Do fans really think UT is going to outbid Alabama, Texas, A&M, OSU, Michigan or any combination of 5/10/20 major programs who might all be interested in any or all, say, top 100 recruits? Is the UT collective going to raise more money than the other 50 schools? No, it is not--Texas A&M is crazy and rich enough to give $76 million to a fired coach. And they, in theory, will not out-raise us. Some programs will certainly raise more money than others; because some will have more crazy, well-heeled fans. What exactly would be the point of such a system: Our rich old boosters can outbid your rich old boosters? Yea, we can throw $2 million at some 18-year-old top prospect and outbid others for one guy---and we in turn will get outbid by many other schools for many other players. So again, what is the point? This is what the schools and the fans want recruiting and college football to become? It's stupid--it's seedy.

I'm not gonna break down every line, but you're wrong again. We absolutely did compete (and thrived) in that environment, from the mid 80's to mid 2000's.

In terms of generating revenue, UT's football program has consistently been top 10(or close) in all of CFB since I've been following. Now by NIL rules none of that revenue can contribute to NIL, but I guarantee you there is correlation between the top revenue producing programs and top NIL collectives.

You're naive if you don't think players have been getting paid all along.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I don’t think it will even make it to court IMO

Agree. The NCAA cannot afford the exposure and will look to compromise. The problem is that the NCAA will try to maintain their superiority over a system of which they do not have the manpower to do.
Legally this will open the doors to more Lawsuits of which they will not be able to enforce current rules already in affect.
There incompetence will show as well as their bias.

In order for the NCAA to exist, they have to avoid exposure and it appears they just took off all their clothes and Streaked across America. Not a pretty sight and little if any junk to work with in the process.

 

[BruisedOrange]

…don’t encourage him…

Like a DUI Attorney coaster at the bar.

The reason for including a divorce lawyer on the legal team would be because the threat of divorce from the NCAA is on the table, and we need someone experienced in targeting the NCAA's assets and making sure "the children" are not left bereft before they can manage on their own.

 

[VolBallGuy]

Heard we're using Morgan and Morgan.

For the people… that don’t read.

 

[GAVol21]

NCAA won't exist soon enough. ACC soon as well. Two league system. NFL Jr model.

 

[Daniel_Lincolns_Foot]

The NCAA’s position reads like “prove to us that something didn’t happen,” which is a logical fallacy since it requires the proof of non-existence.

 

[Delmar]

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong?

It's not about having someone enforce rules that they agreed on. It's about having guidelines that changed constantly with no clarification on how to follow enforced.

You claim the NCAA doesn't investigate without information. I believe you are wrong just for the fact they were already there. They wanted to go after NIL and even though they went through 1000s of phone records and emails without finding an infractions they still decided to proceed. You said it yourself they implemented a rule in 2023 and are trying to hold UT in violation of the rule for something that happened in 2022. Laws don't work like that.

You and the NCAA are wrong and no matter what rule they pass they can't break federal law.

You might as well ignore him. He’s just going to keep posting the same over and over and can’t back up any of it. All he’s got is wishing and hoping that it goes back to the old plantation system. In this case, he can wish in one hand and in the other and see which ones gets filled fastest. It is NEVER going back to the old way of doing business. Simple as that.

 

[Remy]

Tom Mars, NCAA killer & Spyre Attorney posted this on X. Excellent read from another law firm position even if you just scan & then read the conclusion. Little wonder why they never win in court.

In Effort to Rein in NIL Collectives, the NCAA’s Newest NIL Missive Upends U.S. Jurisprudence and Contradicts the NCAA’s Prior NIL Missives | JD Supra

The Birth of NIL - Collectives Following the NCAA’s adoption of its interim name, image, and likeness policy effective July 1, 2021,...

www.jdsupra.com

This was a very good read IMO. The NCAA is all over the place kin what they are promoting regarding NIL and this outlines that. But the idea the NCAA promoting they are ruling from guilty until proven innocent along with marrying circumstantial evidence to that concept is a design rife with biased targeting as the effect. I don't see a court cosigning with the NCAA.