NCAA files response in Tennessee lawsuit, cites state’s laws barring NIL in recruiting

[ptcarter]

From what I've been hearing (and I could be wrong) is that the restraining order would take any NCAA NIL rule off the table until further notice. This would mean (analogy coming) Jeremy Pruitt or any other coach or booster could give anything they want with any retroactive penalties. If that is right (and jump in here if I misinterpreted) it actually would be chaos. Like the Walking dead where they had to lock themselves in a prison so the zombies wouldn't get them. NCAA will be in a prison they can only watch from during this period.

 

[Godfatha]

What a stupid response.

The NCAA's response reiterates what I've been asserting for days--that recruiting should not be about bribery of high-school prospects. And it astounds me that some, if not many UT fans are OK with it--first, because it's essentially unethical; and second, because UT is not going to gain any advantage from a system of NIL bribery. If it's allowed, all the majors will do it; they've all got plenty of money, and all the majors will nullify one another.

What's more, I did not know that Tennessee's state law prohibits using NIL for recruiting purposes--a major factor apparently left out by the state's lawsuit. It would now appear that the lawsuit wants to argue that because we and other schools had been ignoring or violating the state's laws against NIL in recruiting, we should be allowed to carry on with it. Nonsense.

I also didin't realize that the NCAA had issued clear instructions prohibiting the use of NIL deals in recruiting on or before Jan 1 2023.

It's my hope that the major conferences, starting with the SEC and Big10 advisory committee, will come to see the folly and unethical nature of bribery in recruiting. It's a sucker's game, it's corrupting the kids--and it's just unnecessary and stupid. It's not what college sports is supposed to be about. There can be a market for anybody, doing anything, if enough people are dumb enough to create it. Let's hope the majors have some common sense.

- I'm okay with "bribery" because kids are able to get their market value for their abilities. The system before included bribery, it was just under the table. Anyone should be able to earn their market value for their abilities. Do you have a problem with 18 year old musicians, actors, etc. getting paid for their abilities. European football has been paying 18 year old kids well for years for their abilities. The only difference is they do it through academies, not through colleges. Unethical is telling people they can't make money, but we can profit off of your hard work, which is the system that has been in place before NIL. If you're ok with that, then you're a tool.

- The majors are using NIL now. This lawsuit won't suddenly make them do it. It's been going on, already.

- Show me where Tennessee state law prohibits using NIL for recruiting. You're talking out of your ass here.

- If the NCAA had clear rules on prohibition of use of NIL deals in recruiting, do you think every major college program would be doing it?

- Again, unethical is profiting off of someone's abilities while they aren't allowed to get compensation for their abilities.

 

[turbovol]

There's literally nothing there.

UT doesn't have to prove irreparable harm or anything close to that standard.

The NCAA does not have the authority to arbitrarily find and interpret state law as a basis for what they tried to do.

The Vols aren't challenging the rules. The "rules" the NCAA hopes to use were overturned by NIL. Otherwise they may be talking about state law for which they have ZERO jurisdiction or authority. They failed to come up with new rules. That's not a violation by UT.

UT waited "years"? NIL isn't years old. Was UT supposed to call Miss Cleo and get a reading about what rules would NOT BE PLACE in 2024?
And no... UT doesn't have to seek relief until it recognizes damages. That's meaningless and highly prejudiced language.

What process? A process where the NCAA just gets to make things up as they go? Where they (continue to) arbitrarily apply the rules based on who they like and dislike?

If there is "chaos" then the NCAA is 100% responsible. They had an opportunity to look for ways to regulate NIL after the ruling. They didn't. You only have to look at how badly they've managed the portal to know how competent they are to do anything with NIL. Time to kick them to the curb and start over.



This has to be the most delusional grasp of all... or else they know they have a sympathetic judge... or they just felt like they had to say something in response. They are threatening UT with what could be the death penalty. THEY are the ones who have RADICALLY and suddenly and without ANY "sound" deliberation targeted a school (and it could be virtually any other school) for violating rules.... that it does not have and that UT never agreed to comply with.


Bottom line is that the NCAA has been like an abusive wife for its whole existence. The teams tolerated the abuse because they thought the marriage was good on the whole. They have brow beaten and abused programs with inconsistent application and interpretation of the rules. The ONLY thing that permitted it is that no one stood up and said no. It looks like UT, UVA, and hopefully others... have finally had enough.

Your comment is laughable. You think it's easy managing the country's major college football programs, which in some ways are driven by the irrational behavior and expectations of fans? You seem to be under the naive illusion that throwing money at 18-year-olds is somehow going to give us some sort of recruiting advantage. It quite obviously won't, and it's unethical, which then begs the question of why certain UT fans seem eager to participate in the unseemly bribery of high-school prospects. The NCAA is trying to retain at least a bit of integrity in college football--an admittedly tough task when one considers how absurdities in the sport nowadays--and I for one applaud it for doing so. What we know is that simple fans will always start running around flailing their arms whenever they perceive some "attack" on their beloved program, which is why there is this constant refrain that either ESPN, or some football analyst, or the officials or the NCAA, or someone else, is always out to get UT.

 

[DuckinVol]

What a stupid response.

The NCAA's response reiterates what I've been asserting for days--that recruiting should not be about bribery of high-school prospects. And it astounds me that some, if not many UT fans are OK with it--first, because it's essentially unethical; and second, because UT is not going to gain any advantage from a system of NIL bribery. If it's allowed, all the majors will do it; they've all got plenty of money, and all the majors will nullify one another.

What's more, I did not know that Tennessee's state law prohibits using NIL for recruiting purposes--a major factor apparently left out by the state's lawsuit. It would now appear that the lawsuit wants to argue that because we and other schools had been ignoring or violating the state's laws against NIL in recruiting, we should be allowed to carry on with it. Nonsense.

I also didin't realize that the NCAA had issued clear instructions prohibiting the use of NIL deals in recruiting on or before Jan 1 2023.

It's my hope that the major conferences, starting with the SEC and Big10 advisory committee, will come to see the folly and unethical nature of bribery in recruiting. It's a sucker's game, it's corrupting the kids--and it's just unnecessary and stupid. It's not what college sports is supposed to be about. There can be a market for anybody, doing anything, if enough people are dumb enough to create it. Let's hope the majors have some common sense.

I’m very impressed. You are incredibly well written for someone lacking knowledge of the subject and afflicted with an absence of critical thinking skills.

 

[sjt18]

Your comment is laughable. You think it's easy managing the country's major college football programs, which in some ways are driven by the irrational behavior and expectations of fans? You seem to be under the naive illusion that throwing money at 18-year-olds is somehow going to give us some sort of recruiting advantage. It quite obviously won't, and it's unethical, which then begs the question of why certain UT fans seem eager to participate in the unseemly bribery of high-school prospects. The NCAA is trying to retain at least a bit of integrity in college football--an admittedly tough task when one considers how absurdities in the sport nowadays--and I for one applaud it for doing so. What we know is that simple fans will always start running around flailing their arms whenever they perceive some "attack" on their beloved program, which is why there is this constant refrain that either ESPN, or some football analyst, or the officials or the NCAA, or someone else, is always out to get UT.

Your comment is laughable. The NCAA's case is ridiculous. They're grasping at straws. And at what point has the NCAA had or cared about "integrity"? When UT cooperated in every reasonable way and STILL got a multi-year punishment and steep fine? Maybe when they immediately grant one kid a waiver then stall another kid like the one at UNC?

For ANY school paying attention to the UT case, the lesson was clear. Don't self report. Admit nothing. Destroy any evidence you can. Buy off witnesses if necessary. Be as uncooperative as possible to obscure the facts. You get NOTHING for being cooperative except a nice letter followed by more harassment.

Is it "bribery" when a rival employer offers you more money to work for them? Or is that just an open free market at work?

Dude. UT and a lot of other programs ARE helping themselves in recruiting through NIL money. And you're talking about someone else's thoughts being "laughable". I have never thought that most recruits made their decisions exclusively on NIL. One of the best decisions I've ever made was to take a job for about 25% less that allowed me to live in central Missouri rather than northern VA. Other things matter. Sometimes they matter a lot. But the money matters too.

And with me at least, this isn't just "flailing" over the NCAA's lawless attack on UT. They don't even have a rule for what they're trying to pin on UT. Do you understand that or is that too "laughable" for you to recognize? The NCAA has LONG been capricious, biased, superficial, and even arbitrary. That isn't just with UT. It has happened to a lot of programs. They have WAY too much latitude on how they interpret "the rules" and apply them. Always have. As a result, some get away with nothing and others get the hammer... for essentially the same crime.

College sports needs governance. It needs competition rules. But the NCAA is an outdated and ineffective organization that either needs to be kicked to the curb or gutted and completely transformed.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Your comment is laughable. You think it's easy managing the country's major college football programs, which in some ways are driven by the irrational behavior and expectations of fans? You seem to be under the naive illusion that throwing money at 18-year-olds is somehow going to give us some sort of recruiting advantage. It quite obviously won't, and it's unethical, which then begs the question of why certain UT fans seem eager to participate in the unseemly bribery of high-school prospects. The NCAA is trying to retain at least a bit of integrity in college football--an admittedly tough task when one considers how absurdities in the sport nowadays--and I for one applaud it for doing so. What we know is that simple fans will always start running around flailing their arms whenever they perceive some "attack" on their beloved program, which is why there is this constant refrain that either ESPN, or some football analyst, or the officials or the NCAA, or someone else, is always out to get UT.

Once again, you rant as though players have not been compensated under the table for probably as long as you've been alive.

Why won't you address that the tremendous value of the scholarship, education, facilities, etc has NOT been enough to attract elite players to schools for decades and decades?

Were the players "corrupted" by the money they received when you started watching NCAA football and basketball? Are you SERIOUSLY just in the "I didn't see it so it wasn't there" camp?

You're laughable touting that we need to maintain the "integrity" of major college athletics. Aren't you getting sand in your hair keeping your head buried like that?

 

[turbovol]

- I'm okay with "bribery" because kids are able to get their market value for their abilities. The system before included bribery, it was just under the table. Anyone should be able to earn their market value for their abilities. Do you have a problem with 18 year old musicians, actors, etc. getting paid for their abilities. European football has been paying 18 year old kids well for years for their abilities. The only difference is they do it through academies, not through colleges. Unethical is telling people they can't make money, but we can profit off of your hard work, which is the system that has been in place before NIL. If you're ok with that, then you're a tool.

- The majors are using NIL now. This lawsuit won't suddenly make them do it. It's been going on, already.

- Show me where Tennessee state law prohibits using NIL for recruiting. You're talking out of your ass here.

- If the NCAA had clear rules on prohibition of use of NIL deals in recruiting, do you think every major college program would be doing it?

- Again, unethical is profiting off of someone's abilities while they aren't allowed to get compensation for their abilities.

First, as I mentioned above, there can be a "market" for anything if people are stupid enough to create it. And, in my opinion, the majors are stupid to create a market for 17-year-old football players because there is no advantage in it, really. Because they will all just cancel each other out. UT is not going to build a better roster than Georgia or Ohio State because of NIL in recruiting, though feel free to pretend that we will. Beyond that, bribery contests for high-school players is unseemly and unethical on the face of it.

College football players are already paid for their efforts--and rather handsomely--in the form of a free, four year college education--and for a lot of kids nowadays it extends to five or six years and they can even get a graduate degree on the university's dime. You do realize that a free college/graduate education is worth a helluva lot of money? Probably in excess of $250,000 over four years, everything including. And it would be more than that if they're able to earn a graduate degree because they were redshirted or had an injury redshirt/covid year, etc. How come this is never mentioned by the crazies? I think because the college/academic side of alll this doesn't register with them--because most haven't been to college. All they know and see is the football.

There are probably high-school football programs around the country---think Texas, for one--with fans/administrators crazy enough to offer money to 12- or 14-year-olds to persuade them to attend and play for their team as opposed to a rival. It would be stupid and unethical--but certainly it could be done.

Sure, I hire people to play piano at parties on occasion. It is free-time, part-time work--like cutting grass or shoveling snow. That is not college football. College football is a sanctioned sport sponsored--made possible by--the university. Football players can't play football for money on their own and get paid for it. They play it only because it is a university-sponsored activity--and they are full-time university students. If UT didn't have football, and they weren't a student at UT, they of course wouldn't be playing football at all.

Who exactly is "profiting" off the "hard work" of the football players? The only ones really profiting, financially, are the head coaches. The others who are profiting are all the student-athletes who participate in the 15/20 non-revenue sports at UT and other colleges. It is football revenue that sponsors all those sports, which do not make money and never will. Football revenues are plowed back into the athletic department--into stadium improvements--and essetially fund much of the athletic department. Some athletic department money goes to the academic side as well. So, nobody but the head coach is directly "profiting" from the games. It's a myth. I'm glad that we have a bunch of good Olympic sports teams at UT, made possible in part by football, because they enhance UT's overall reputation--as they do at all other universities

European soccer academics are not schools--and the kids are not paid. They may get stipends for certain expenses, but they're not paid, I do not believe.

NIL was not--not--conceived as a recruiting tool. It was conceived---by SEC states, originally (how funny)-- to compensate existing student-athletes for the use of their name, image, likeness. Fair enough. It's been corrupted and devolved into a recruiting tool because programs and their boosters are crazy. That is a word that ever more accurately drives college football. It is why A&M will spend more than $100 million to fire one coach and hire another--idiocy of the highest order, and all to win a few more college football games.

If the majors are allowed to carry on with NIL bribery in recruiting, then fans can be free to send their hard-earned money to a collective so that it can bribe some gangly, pimply tight end to UT, in the hope--and it will only be that--that he might develop into a player good enough to help us beat Ole Miss or Kentucky or whomever. I won't do it--but plenty of zealous fans will because they care excessively about college games.

 

[chatt.vol]

What a stupid response.

The NCAA's response reiterates what I've been asserting for days--that recruiting should not be about bribery of high-school prospects. And it astounds me that some, if not many UT fans are OK with it--first, because it's essentially unethical; and second, because UT is not going to gain any advantage from a system of NIL bribery. If it's allowed, all the majors will do it; they've all got plenty of money, and all the majors will nullify one another.

What's more, I did not know that Tennessee's state law prohibits using NIL for recruiting purposes--a major factor apparently left out by the state's lawsuit. It would now appear that the lawsuit wants to argue that because we and other schools had been ignoring or violating the state's laws against NIL in recruiting, we should be allowed to carry on with it. Nonsense.

I also didin't realize that the NCAA had issued clear instructions prohibiting the use of NIL deals in recruiting on or before Jan 1 2023.

It's my hope that the major conferences, starting with the SEC and Big10 advisory committee, will come to see the folly and unethical nature of bribery in recruiting. It's a sucker's game, it's corrupting the kids--and it's just unnecessary and stupid. It's not what college sports is supposed to be about. There can be a market for anybody, doing anything, if enough people are dumb enough to create it. Let's hope the majors have some common sense.

Yes Tennessee state law prohibits the universities from offering NIL to play for them. But if you could read and understand the university didn't offer NIL to the athletes a collective did. Tennessee state law clearly says a third party(Spyre) can offer NIL deals. That is exactly what happened. Spyres contracts also state their client isn't bound to attend any institution. They are free to attend any university of their choice.

These laws were put in place in 2021 and amended in 2022 prior to NCAA rules. The amendment in April 2022 allows universities to help with NIL.

This amendment removes the present law provision whereby an institution, or an officer, director, or employee of the institution may not be involved in the development, operation, or promotion of a current or prospective intercollegiate athlete’s name, image, or likeness, including actions that compensate or cause compensation to be provided to athletes. This amendment instead provides that an institution’s involvement in support of name, image, or likeness activities does not constitute compensation to or representation of an intercollegiate athlete by the institution for purposes of this part so long as the institution does not coerce, compel, or interfere with an intercollegiate athlete’s decision to earn compensation from or obtain representation in connection with a specific name, image, or likeness opportunity.

So the rules (not law) that the NCAA wrote in 2023 does not override state or federal law. The NCAA was on campus still investigating the Pruitt case when all of these current "violations" were supposedly taking place. They scoured through thousands of emails and phone records and found no violation of NIL so they decided to write a rule deeming collectives as boosters. Now they are trying to retroactively enforce a rule to come up with a violation. Even the new rule is against the state and federal law so they are grasping at straws.

Would you be ok with the government passing a new law that says you can't go to football games and then trying to punish you for any game you went to prior to the law being passed?

 

[GetEmVols]

The fact that NCAA thinks there isn't already chaos just shows how out of touch they are on the campus level. Further proving our point.

 

[MegaVol615]

Yes Tennessee state law prohibits the universities from offering NIL to play for them. But if you could read and understand the university didn't offer NIL to the athletes a collective did. Tennessee state law clearly says a third party(Spyre) can offer NIL deals. That is exactly what happened. Spyres contracts also state their client isn't bound to attend any institution. They are free to attend any university of their choice.

These laws were put in place in 2021 and amended in 2022 prior to NCAA rules. The amendment in April 2022 allows universities to help with NIL.

This amendment removes the present law provision whereby an institution, or an officer, director, or employee of the institution may not be involved in the development, operation, or promotion of a current or prospective intercollegiate athlete’s name, image, or likeness, including actions that compensate or cause compensation to be provided to athletes. This amendment instead provides that an institution’s involvement in support of name, image, or likeness activities does not constitute compensation to or representation of an intercollegiate athlete by the institution for purposes of this part so long as the institution does not coerce, compel, or interfere with an intercollegiate athlete’s decision to earn compensation from or obtain representation in connection with a specific name, image, or likeness opportunity.

So the rules (not law) that the NCAA wrote in 2023 does not override state or federal law. The NCAA was on campus still investigating the Pruitt case when all of these current "violations" were supposedly taking place. They scoured through thousands of emails and phone records and found no violation of NIL so they decided to write a rule deeming collectives as boosters. Now they are trying to retroactively enforce a rule to come up with a violation. Even the new rule is against the state and federal law so they are grasping at straws.

Would you be ok with the government passing a new law that says you can't go to football games and then trying to punish you for any game you went to prior to the law being passed?

Well said Chatt

 

[turbovol]

Once again, you rant as though players have not been compensated under the table for probably as long as you've been alive.

Why won't you address that the tremendous value of the scholarship, education, facilities, etc has NOT been enough to attract elite players to schools for decades and decades?

Were the players "corrupted" by the money they received when you started watching NCAA football and basketball? Are you SERIOUSLY just in the "I didn't see it so it wasn't there" camp?

You're laughable touting that we need to maintain the "integrity" of major college athletics. Aren't you getting sand in your hair keeping your head buried like that?

"Why won't you address that the tremendous value of the scholarship, education, facilities, etc has NOT been enough to attract elite players to schools for decades and decades?"

This statement makes no absolutely no sense. Are you saying that UT and every other major university have not had elite players over the decade. You can't be making a statement as inane as that. Or are you saying that every elite athlete at UT over the years was paid an under-the-table bribe? If that is your point, I think you are wrong. Was Manning bribed to attend UT? No, he wasn't.

Certainly, college football has been dirty in certain respects over the years. There have been under-the-table payments, cars, etc--for a select few. But nobody really knows to what degree it went on. The argument that, "well, there was bribery in the past, so there should be no problem with bribery now" seems rather lame.

Throwing money at high-schoolers seems foolish to me on many levels. First, you don't even know if they'll pan out. Many don't--at least half of the top 100, on average, won't pan out. Second, many will take your money and transfer after a year or two. Third, it's unseemly and it corrupts the young people--turns them into crass, money-grubbing mercensaries. Fourth, neither UT nor anybody else is going to gain a real advantage from it because all the majors have the same resources--and craziness--and will cancel out the bribery efforts of one another. But if it is ruled legal and the fans and programs want to spend/waste the money, they will certainly do so!

 

[ankh83]

 

[davethevol]

Yes Tennessee state law prohibits the universities from offering NIL to play for them. But if you could read and understand the university didn't offer NIL to the athletes a collective did. Tennessee state law clearly says a third party(Spyre) can offer NIL deals. That is exactly what happened. Spyres contracts also state their client isn't bound to attend any institution. They are free to attend any university of their choice.

These laws were put in place in 2021 and amended in 2022 prior to NCAA rules. The amendment in April 2022 allows universities to help with NIL.

This amendment removes the present law provision whereby an institution, or an officer, director, or employee of the institution may not be involved in the development, operation, or promotion of a current or prospective intercollegiate athlete’s name, image, or likeness, including actions that compensate or cause compensation to be provided to athletes. This amendment instead provides that an institution’s involvement in support of name, image, or likeness activities does not constitute compensation to or representation of an intercollegiate athlete by the institution for purposes of this part so long as the institution does not coerce, compel, or interfere with an intercollegiate athlete’s decision to earn compensation from or obtain representation in connection with a specific name, image, or likeness opportunity.

So the rules (not law) that the NCAA wrote in 2023 does not override state or federal law. The NCAA was on campus still investigating the Pruitt case when all of these current "violations" were supposedly taking place. They scoured through thousands of emails and phone records and found no violation of NIL so they decided to write a rule deeming collectives as boosters. Now they are trying to retroactively enforce a rule to come up with a violation. Even the new rule is against the state and federal law so they are grasping at straws.

Would you be ok with the government passing a new law that says you can't go to football games and then trying to punish you for any game you went to prior to the law being passed?

Because the guy is indoctrinated Marxist that’s against a free society.

 

[Special Ed]

I'm not sure I want Pitino on my team

I appreciate all the high-profile support we can get against the ncaa.
Pitino makes some very good points about the "enforcement arm".

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

"Why won't you address that the tremendous value of the scholarship, education, facilities, etc has NOT been enough to attract elite players to schools for decades and decades?"

This statement makes no absolutely no sense. Are you saying that UT and every other major university have not had elite players over the decade. You can't be making a statement as inane as that. Or are you saying that every elite athlete at UT over the years was paid an under-the-table bribe? If that is your point, I think you are wrong. Was Manning bribed to attend UT? No, he wasn't.

Certainly, college football has been dirty in certain respects over the years. There have been under-the-table payments, cars, etc--for a select few. But nobody really knows to what degree it went on. The argument that, "well, there was bribery in the past, so there should be no problem with bribery now" seems rather lame.

Throwing money at high-schoolers seems foolish to me on many levels. First, you don't even know if they'll pan out. Many don't--at least half of the top 100, on average, won't pan out. Second, many will take your money and transfer after a year or two. Third, it's unseemly and it corrupts the young people--turns them into crass, money-grubbing mercensaries. Fourth, neither UT nor anybody else is going to gain a real advantage from it because all the majors have the same resources--and craziness--and will cancel out the bribery efforts of one another. But if it is ruled legal and the fans and programs want to spend/waste the money, they will certainly do so!

I'll agree it's not GOOD for the college athletics in the long run but cutting out NIL simply won't cut out the use of money to entice players to schools.

LOTS of players have ended up at schools, in part, because they were compensated. Given the choice between going to one elite school or another elite school with similar scholarships and coaches, the "value added" of money has been in the mix for 50+yrs.

Okay, I get it. You dislike NIL and paying young athletes to play. Did you dislike it when it was happening before NIL or just ignore it? Do you think Cam Newton goes to Auburn without money?

And...... I'll bet Peyton never wanted for ANYTHING at UT and it didn't all come from his Dad's money. I KNOW Condredge Holloway never wanted for anything at UT because I saw him on campus. He was taken care of so that he didn't want for anything unlike typical college students.

Sure, UT could refuse to give NIL or keep it very low key. If you like Vandy level SEC play, that's how to achieve it.

 

[FranklinVFL]

Is there a way to request that we have stars or something by everyone’s username when they post to know who is an attorney and who just spent the night at a Holiday Inn regarding all this legal talk?

Could do the same with verified insiders, doctors, players, coaches, etc. just so we know who is legitimate and who just has orange-tainted glasses on?

 

[Jackcrevol]

so.. wait.. cant create chaos on a moments notice,, even tho the ncaa did the same thing with the "leak" ? am i missing something here on this one point ??

Cant create chaos at a moment's notice. Like relaxing rules on NIL, then doing dogshit about it, until 4 years later?

 

[DaddyChad]

First, as I mentioned above, there can be a "market" for anything if people are stupid enough to create it. And, in my opinion, the majors are stupid to create a market for 17-year-old football players because there is no advantage in it, really. Because they will all just cancel each other out. UT is not going to build a better roster than Georgia or Ohio State because of NIL in recruiting, though feel free to pretend that we will. Beyond that, bribery contests for high-school players is unseemly and unethical on the face of it.

College football players are already paid for their efforts--and rather handsomely--in the form of a free, four year college education--and for a lot of kids nowadays it extends to five or six years and they can even get a graduate degree on the university's dime. You do realize that a free college/graduate education is worth a helluva lot of money? Probably in excess of $250,000 over four years, everything including. And it would be more than that if they're able to earn a graduate degree because they were redshirted or had an injury redshirt/covid year, etc. How come this is never mentioned by the crazies? I think because the college/academic side of alll this doesn't register with them--because most haven't been to college. All they know and see is the football.

There are probably high-school football programs around the country---think Texas, for one--with fans/administrators crazy enough to offer money to 12- or 14-year-olds to persuade them to attend and play for their team as opposed to a rival. It would be stupid and unethical--but certainly it could be done.

Sure, I hire people to play piano at parties on occasion. It is free-time, part-time work--like cutting grass or shoveling snow. That is not college football. College football is a sanctioned sport sponsored--made possible by--the university. Football players can't play football for money on their own and get paid for it. They play it only because it is a university-sponsored activity--and they are full-time university students. If UT didn't have football, and they weren't a student at UT, they of course wouldn't be playing football at all.

Who exactly is "profiting" off the "hard work" of the football players? The only ones really profiting, financially, are the head coaches. The others who are profiting are all the student-athletes who participate in the 15/20 non-revenue sports at UT and other colleges. It is football revenue that sponsors all those sports, which do not make money and never will. Football revenues are plowed back into the athletic department--into stadium improvements--and essetially fund much of the athletic department. Some athletic department money goes to the academic side as well. So, nobody but the head coach is directly "profiting" from the games. It's a myth. I'm glad that we have a bunch of good Olympic sports teams at UT, made possible in part by football, because they enhance UT's overall reputation--as they do at all other universities

European soccer academics are not schools--and the kids are not paid. They may get stipends for certain expenses, but they're not paid, I do not believe.

NIL was not--not--conceived as a recruiting tool. It was conceived---by SEC states, originally (how funny)-- to compensate existing student-athletes for the use of their name, image, likeness. Fair enough. It's been corrupted and devolved into a recruiting tool because programs and their boosters are crazy. That is a word that ever more accurately drives college football. It is why A&M will spend more than $100 million to fire one coach and hire another--idiocy of the highest order, and all to win a few more college football games.

If the majors are allowed to carry on with NIL bribery in recruiting, then fans can be free to send their hard-earned money to a collective so that it can bribe some gangly, pimply tight end to UT, in the hope--and it will only be that--that he might develop into a player good enough to help us beat Ole Miss or Kentucky or whomever. I won't do it--but plenty of zealous fans will because they care excessively about college games.

It would be something to consider if all of your thinking wasn’t completely counter to what has happened. Bama built a dynasty bc of cheating and buying the best players available. This was before NIL, this was boosters paying players. NIL has allowed some teams to improve their rosters.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Nor should college be all about making money and for most it is not.

Those are the folks who get student loan debt that is higher than the median salary for their chosen degree.

 

[VolTull]

Those are the folks who get student loan debt that is higher than the median salary for their chosen degree.

Sadly, true.

 

[midtnvol2]

The number one rule in anything and mostly politics is follow the money! They know that in the very near future the power 5 will check out of the NCAA and all of their money will go with it. This is about making themselves relevant and hanging on for dear life! A quick google search explains it all. Click on this link to see their annual revenue stream. If the power 5 goes so does the money. If the power 5 leave and form their own organization and negotiate their own TV contracts for their new organization, the NCAA will lose a ton of money that the remaining lower level member schools cannot generate for them.

NCAA revenue by segment 2022 | Statista

In the 2022 financial year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) generated almost 940 million U.S.

www.statista.com

NCAA reports loss of $59 million for 2022 fiscal year, but net assets remain over $450 million

The NCAA operated at a nearly $59 million deficit for its 2022 fiscal year after net investment losses and costs of creation of self-insurance entity.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Woodrow Call]

This is the opening salvo for the SEC and BIG to leave the NCAA. Kinda hard to stay in an organization you took to court and that threatens your livelihood.

 

[VolTull]

Is there a way to request that we have stars or something by everyone’s username when they post to know who is an attorney and who just spent the night at a Holiday Inn regarding all this legal talk?

Could do the same with verified insiders, doctors, players, coaches, etc. just so we know who is legitimate and who just has orange-tainted glasses on?

Good idea, impossible to to accomplish but a good idea. Many will lie. LOL

 

[Volbrando]

One way to solve this is to make college athletes employees of the schools and when we donate they can then to decide what goes to their rosters, coaching staff, facilities etc and forget the rules about inviting a recruit to a cookout or flying them in officially or unofficially.

Its so stupid how complicated and ridiculous they have made everything

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The number one rule in anything and mostly politics is follow the money! They know that in the very near future the power 5 will check out of the NCAA and all of their money will go with it. This is about making themselves relevant and hanging on for dear life! A quick google search explains it all. Click on this link to see their annual revenue stream. If the power 5 goes so does the money. If the power 5 leave and form their own organization and negotiate their own TV contracts for their new organization, the NCAA will lose a ton of money that the remaining lower level member schools cannot generate for them.

NCAA revenue by segment 2022 | Statista

In the 2022 financial year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) generated almost 940 million U.S.

www.statista.com

NCAA reports loss of $59 million for 2022 fiscal year, but net assets remain over $450 million

The NCAA operated at a nearly $59 million deficit for its 2022 fiscal year after net investment losses and costs of creation of self-insurance entity.

www.usatoday.com

I wonder what can or does happen if the major conferences "resign" from the NCAA.

When it comes to March Madness, the NCAA has the TV contracts for the tournament and I think it's until beyond 2030. That tourney accounts for most of their money.

I'm unsure if the schools can force the NCAA to give up those rights (a la the ACC "Grant of Rights" issues.)