NIL contract structure

[Voltopia]

You're being facetious. You know exactly what I mean.

The NCAA says that on April 12th or whatever, each school can only have $XX million in NIL.

A school does that. No problems. On April 13th, several new NIL deals are signed by players AFTER the NCAA cutoff date.

Under your plan, what happens?

Do you force the school to throw those players off the team?

Do you force the school to forfeit games?

Ah ha ha, now that's a perfect avenue of thought.

So we can't do anything to players, and we can't really make the schools forfeit games ahead of time ... how about this. Any games played with rosters over the money cap are not counted in the win-loss record. Any school wanting to have the game count must cut players until their roster is under the combined financial limit. Your star WR signed a huge deal? Too bad, can't keep him on the roster if you want the game to count. He's free to sign elsewhere of course and continue, with a team that can handle his "hit" to their cap.

This is insidious, and insane -- and I love it. I already realize the problems but in such an anything-goes environment, let's scorch the earth and see what survives.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Ah ha ha, now that's a perfect avenue of thought.

So we can't do anything to players, and we can't really make the schools forfeit games ahead of time ... how about this. Any games played with rosters over the money cap are not counted in the win-loss record. Any school wanting to have the game count must cut players until their roster is under the combined financial limit. Your star WR signed a huge deal? Too bad, can't keep him on the roster if you want the game to count. He's free to sign elsewhere of course and continue, with a team that can handle his "hit" to their cap.

This is insidious, and insane -- and I love it. I already realize the problems but in such an anything-goes environment, let's scorch the earth and see what survives.

The lawsuits add up quickly for randomly cutting guys over NIL, especially over deals they didn't even sign. The other lawsuits from the schools, even the conferences, from making games not count also add up fast (or if I were a coach, I wouldn't play under those terms and let ESPN sue everybody.)

The last time I discussed this with Guntersville I think he went with "you close the NIL like the portal" which of course gets you sued. You can't tell players when they can sign NIL deals.

I'm unsure why people want the NCAA to continue to get sued over NIL when they've not won an NIL lawsuit since Alston and the Supreme Court told the NCAA that the only solution is via Congress.

It's not like the Supreme Court doesn't know the law and how it will be applied to the NCAA. It was a 9-0 verdict. Apparently, legally, the NCAA is done making rules concerning compensation.

Should House v NCAA be approved, there will be a near immediate lawsuit for the $20.6M limit on revenue sharing. Was that negotiated with the players? Why not more? Why can't the players have a voice in that amount like pro players do?

It's a mess but trying to control it like the old days just costs the NCAA legal fees and never works.

 

[Voltopia]

The lawsuits add up quickly for randomly cutting guys over NIL, especially over deals they didn't even sign. The other lawsuits from the schools, even the conferences, from making games not count also add up fast (or if I were a coach, I wouldn't play under those terms and let ESPN sue everybody.)

The last time I discussed this with Guntersville I think he went with "you close the NIL like the portal" which of course gets you sued. You can't tell players when they can sign NIL deals.

I'm unsure why people want the NCAA to continue to get sued over NIL when they've not won an NIL lawsuit since Alston and the Supreme Court told the NCAA that the only solution is via Congress.

It's not like the Supreme Court doesn't know the law and how it will be applied to the NCAA. It was a 9-0 verdict. Apparently, legally, the NCAA is done making rules concerning compensation.

Should House v NCAA be approved, there will be a near immediate lawsuit for the $20.6M limit on revenue sharing. Was that negotiated with the players? Why not more? Why can't the players have a voice in that amount like pro players do?

It's a mess but trying to control it like the old days just costs the NCAA legal fees and never works.

It was said mostly in jest. So I don't really have any rejoinder. I'm just watching the clock until they disgorge the pro franchises and we see what remains.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It was said mostly in jest. So I don't really have any rejoinder. I'm just watching the clock until they disgorge the pro franchises and we see what remains.

I really wish the high revenue schools would separate from the schools entirely and perhaps some athletic programs can survive as scholarship + NIL with lesser talent not being worth millions and not be considered pro ball.

As it is, obviously some of these players are actually worth a lot of money to the big programs. Like it or not, some schools are willing to pay good money and UT is one of those schools.

I'm past trying to fix it and tired of seeing lawsuit after lawsuit the NCAA cannot possibly win. Just let it go. Let's fund our NIL, stomach whatever we have to do to recruit, and enjoy the football.

Those who can't stomach it, I get it. No ill will and I hope their Saturday's are filled with something exciting again soon.

 

[woodpusher]

The lawsuits add up quickly for randomly cutting guys over NIL, especially over deals they didn't even sign. The other lawsuits from the schools, even the conferences, from making games not count also add up fast (or if I were a coach, I wouldn't play under those terms and let ESPN sue everybody.)

The last time I discussed this with Guntersville I think he went with "you close the NIL like the portal" which of course gets you sued. You can't tell players when they can sign NIL deals.

I'm unsure why people want the NCAA to continue to get sued over NIL when they've not won an NIL lawsuit since Alston and the Supreme Court told the NCAA that the only solution is via Congress.

It's not like the Supreme Court doesn't know the law and how it will be applied to the NCAA. It was a 9-0 verdict. Apparently, legally, the NCAA is done making rules concerning compensation.

Should House v NCAA be approved, there will be a near immediate lawsuit for the $20.6M limit on revenue sharing. Was that negotiated with the players? Why not more? Why can't the players have a voice in that amount like pro players do?

It's a mess but trying to control it like the old days just costs the NCAA legal fees and never works.

Even without lawsuits, it seems a bit silly to force forfeits like that.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Even without lawsuits, it seems a bit silly to force forfeits like that.

That's my point. If a school goes over the "NIL cap" another poster suggested after the team has started the season or whatever "NIL cap deadline" the NCAA might set, there's nothing the NCAA can do as punishment that won't get them sued.

An NIL cap for the teams is just not enforceable unlike the scholarship limit or roster limits the school actually controls. The school cannot legally keep a player from signing an NIL deal at any time during the season so no "over the cap " situation can be punished unless they try to force a team to do stupid things like:

1. cut the player who signed the NIL or other players to get below the cap AFTER the season has started.

2. fine the team over an NIL deal their player signed after the season started even though it's not legal for anyone to prevent the player from making NIL deals at any time. That's like fining a team because it rained on too many home games, like they can control rain or NIL deals.

It's just a dumb idea to try to have a "team NIL maximum or cap" when the school cannot control NIL deals nor can the NCAA control NIL deals.

 

[Voltopia]

Deleted. Never mind.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

You're being facetious. You know exactly what I mean.

The NCAA says that on April 12th or whatever, each school can only have $XX million in NIL.

A school does that. No problems. On April 13th, several new NIL deals are signed by players AFTER the NCAA cutoff date.

Under your plan, what happens?

Do you force the school to throw those players off the team?

Do you force the school to forfeit games?

No, the player has elected to take income in excess to his reported and agreed upon allocation and disqualifies themselves. A decision they must make and a risk the school takes when accepting them, IF they do not have cap space OR elect to use it. Deferred income would still count the period it is paid even if player has moved on, additional penalties dependent on schools knowledge or involvement assuming outside sources are still in play. Potentially have to repay school money out of the additional income while not being eligible, could be a financial win anyway.

Cap allocation is just another data block on schollie doc, renewable each year.

Follow the pro cap regulation and tampering models.

 

[LWSVOL]

That's my point. If a school goes over the "NIL cap" another poster suggested after the team has started the season or whatever "NIL cap deadline" the NCAA might set, there's nothing the NCAA can do as punishment that won't get them sued.

An NIL cap for the teams is just not enforceable unlike the scholarship limit or roster limits the school actually controls. The school cannot legally keep a player from signing an NIL deal at any time during the season so no "over the cap " situation can be punished unless they try to force a team to do stupid things like:

1. cut the player who signed the NIL or other players to get below the cap AFTER the season has started.

2. fine the team over an NIL deal their player signed after the season started even though it's not legal for anyone to prevent the player from making NIL deals at any time. That's like fining a team because it rained on too many home games, like they can control rain or NIL deals.

It's just a dumb idea to try to have a "team NIL maximum or cap" when the school cannot control NIL deals nor can the NCAA control NIL deals.

the NCAA is not going forward functioning as it has in the past. The Presidents will take into account the losing of lawsuits and possible future lawsuits to limit what they do.... JMO

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

No, the player has elected to take income in excess to his reported and agreed upon allocation and disqualifies themselves. A decision they must make and a risk the school takes when accepting them, IF they do not have cap space OR elect to use it. Deferred income would still count the period it is paid even if player has moved on, additional penalties dependent on schools knowledge or involvement assuming outside sources are still in play. Potentially have to repay school money out of the additional income while not being eligible, could be a financial win anyway.

Cap allocation is just another data block on schollie doc, renewable each year.

Follow the pro cap regulation and tampering models.

If you think players are going to agree to that, you're not in touch with reality. The players have ZERO obligation to let the NCAA control their private income and the NCAA has no right to control their private income.

You really DO just want to push the money back underground, I suppose. The teams WANT to pay these people, why are you not in favor of anyone doing it above board?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

the NCAA is not going forward functioning as it has in the past. The Presidents will take into account the losing of lawsuits and possible future lawsuits to limit what they do.... JMO

So far, they have all but shut down any NIL enforcement. The House plan seems to create a "clearinghouse" to verify NIL deals, which will get them sued because they cannot legally empower themselves to nix an NIL deal they're not involved in.

Everything they try to regulate with NIL will result in a lost lawsuit.

I'm unsure why people spend so much time trying to make sure the free market doesn't function when it's obviously ruled illegal every time it's tested.

 

[Carp]

That begs a question

Is it legal for a government entity (university) to compete with a private business, and essentially drive them out of the market?

I think the schools will find it more difficult to get donors to donate directly to the school, rather than the independent NIL (where donors are awarded better perks and have more "influence" on how their dollars are spent). I also think schools will find that athletes would much rather go directly with an outside NIL rather than some sort of contract with a school that ties them there. And for those reasons, I don't think collectives are going anywhere.

It probably helps the smaller schools more than anything, as their athletes aren't making a ton in NIL in the first place.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think the schools will find it more difficult to get donors to donate directly to the school, rather than the independent NIL (where donors are awarded better perks and have more "influence" on how their dollars are spent). I also think schools will find that athletes would much rather go directly with an outside NIL rather than some sort of contract with a school that ties them there. And for those reasons, I don't think collectives are going anywhere.

It probably helps the smaller schools more than anything, as their athletes aren't making a ton in NIL in the first place.

The major donors might get some power or insight with donations but the average donor has no idea what UT is doing with our donation.

I think the "fat cats jerking the AD around" era ended when Fulmer left. Danny White doesn't seem to be bound to the good ol boy network.

I don't believe collectives are going anywhere either because the schools will want to pay the players more than the NCAA revenue allotment because competition for good athletes isn't going anywhere.

 

[LWSVOL]

So far, they have all but shut down any NIL enforcement. The House plan seems to create a "clearinghouse" to verify NIL deals, which will get them sued because they cannot legally empower themselves to nix an NIL deal they're not involved in.

Everything they try to regulate with NIL will result in a lost lawsuit.

I'm unsure why people spend so much time trying to make sure the free market doesn't function when it's obviously ruled illegal every time it's tested.

I think schools / universities are trying to determine how to function in a world where students are not employees and those students are now able to make money. How do they manage it in the future and what is going to cost them? With only 25 or so athletic departments turning a profit, they have to determine future revenues to meet future expenses where they don't know what the expense ledger will be like in 3 years, 5 years, etc. How do they generate revenues to cover it? Its a new world that is changing day to day.

Making them employees, at Tennessee they become "state" employees, has a whole new set of issues to be resolved. Not sure of all the ramifications of that across each state. But seems if they were employees and then could unionize (Which in Tennessee my understanding is state employees cannot setup a union) would solve a lot of issues it seems.

The NCAA is the schools so the schools will determine how the NCAA or whatever future body is the oversight of the schools functions. I suspect there will be multiple bodies of over sight because the majority of schools will not be able to function in this new world. Likely only talking 40 or 50 that can go forward.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

My sincere apologies. I didn't realize you were Internet challenged. Epb is owned by the city of Chattanooga and provides not just power but also their own, community owned fiber network for Internet, and offers TV plans and they've been doing it for about a decade.

EPB Chattanooga - Who we are | EPB EPB Chattanooga - Who we are

Hmm, EPB is a government electric monopoly. Who, exactly competes with them to provide and transmit electricity?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

How is it direct competition? That’s where you’re losing me. The Chiefs aren’t competing with State Farm. Sypre isn’t competing with UT.

That’s what I’m confused about.

That's because the Chiefs and the NFL are t in the player NIL market.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think schools / universities are trying to determine how to function in a world where students are not employees and those students are now able to make money. How do they manage it in the future and what is going to cost them? With only 25 or so athletic departments turning a profit, they have to determine future revenues to meet future expenses where they don't know what the expense ledger will be like in 3 years, 5 years, etc. How do they generate revenues to cover it? Its a new world that is changing day to day.

Making them employees, at Tennessee they become "state" employees, has a whole new set of issues to be resolved. Not sure of all the ramifications of that across each state. But seems if they were employees and then could unionize (Which in Tennessee my understanding is state employees cannot setup a union) would solve a lot of issues it seems.

The NCAA is the schools so the schools will determine how the NCAA or whatever future body is the oversight of the schools functions. I suspect there will be multiple bodies of over sight because the majority of schools will not be able to function in this new world. Likely only talking 40 or 50 that can go forward.

I've seen this shake out with the NCAA, who makes the rules for schools and is trying to set the cap and make NIL rules, etc etc being deemed a "joint employer" of the players, basically "the wizard behind the curtain" legally.

I'm not an attorney but that makes common sense if the NCAA is going to make all the rules and it's been the NCAA getting sued over those rules all along. If that is the case legally, I think the players will be able to unionize to bargain with the NCAA, not the schools, over the rules.

I've been preaching that schools like UT, high revenue schools, need to spin off the revenue sports from the schools before the majority of schools get lumped into a pro category too. It may be too late already but ASAP, UT football should be outside the school and the facilities and logos leased. It sucks but it's much better for college athletics overall.

 

[Vol8188]

That's because the Chiefs and the NFL are t in the player NIL market.

How many times do you intend on responding to this? I feel like this is the third time (at least second) you’ve respond to my same comment

I don’t think the universities will be in the NIL market either. I’m pretty sure it will be considered direct compensation for play. Can you provide a source on your claim that the universities will be paying for NIL?

 

[LWSVOL]

I've seen this shake out with the NCAA, who makes the rules for schools and is trying to set the cap and make NIL rules, etc etc being deemed a "joint employer" of the players, basically "the wizard behind the curtain" legally.

I'm not an attorney but that makes common sense if the NCAA is going to make all the rules and it's been the NCAA getting sued over those rules all along. If that is the case legally, I think the players will be able to unionize to bargain with the NCAA, not the schools, over the rules.

I've been preaching that schools like UT, high revenue schools, need to spin off the revenue sports from the schools before the majority of schools get lumped into a pro category too. It may be too late already but ASAP, UT football should be outside the school and the facilities and logos leased. It sucks but it's much better for college athletics overall.

your last paragraph I guess you assume that would end most athletic programs at UT? for example, baseball lost 5 million dollars for year 2023-24. It would not be able to continue at that rate.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

your last paragraph I guess you assume that would end most athletic programs at UT? for example, baseball lost 5 million dollars for year 2023-24. It would not be able to continue at that rate.

No. UT spins off football and basketball, leases the logos/facilities which are worth quite a bit of money, then uses that money to fund other programs. Will the university lose money on athletics? Possibly. Was athletics intended at universities to be a revenue source? When did that become part of the school's mission? Does the Accounting Dept have to make money to survive?

What it avoids is Title IX, employment issues for other sports, etc.