NIL final thoughts

[GoodTimeVol]

I'm reposting my thoughts from another thread and I know I'm beating a dead horse, but this was got me thinking about differences in college and pros in response on the other thread. We all have opinions and I certainly respect them, and we all will not agree on everything, that's what makes VOLNATION blog site so great. I've been on here for a long time myself and I've been a UT fan for 53 years. I've seen great players during that span give their all for Tennessee and that is what makes me love all sports in college. (Reggie White, Condredge Holloway, Dale Carter, Peyton Manning, Bernard King, Grant Williams, Monica Abbot, Candice Parker, Jamal Lewis, Casey Clausen, Tee Martin, Eric Ainge, Leonard Little, Al Wilson, Heath Shular, Tony Robinson, Alan Cockrell...... All those players and many more came to UT AND GAVE THEIR ALL AS VFLs. That's why I love college sports and not so much pro. I will say, I'm not much of a pro fan not near the level I am for college. I'll take a day off from work to go to a UT game. I'll check my phone for my favorite pro team score. That's the difference.

Below is my response from the other thread question:
The Old NCAA rules as you put them, became an issue only when Ed O'Bannon realized that he could be paid for the use of his NIL. I'm sorry it's not federal law breaking what's happening in college athletics. If you ever read, then you would understand that the intent for NIL based on the Courts ruling of they said laws you are claiming broken was full cost of attendance at the school, Scholarships for Athletes, living expenses, and anything that the NCAA was not covering already. Football players were making on top of all that before this debacle an average prior to 2020 $30,000 to $40,000 each on top of all other expenses paid. O'Bannon also won from the Supreme Court $42.2 million for fees and costs as his case went nearly 10 years. He did not win all that money because of NIL itself! Read below the following based on the court ruling:

The trial against the NCAA lasted from June 9 to June 27, 2014. Final written closing statements were submitted on July 10.

On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws. She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.

The NCAA subsequently appealed the ruling, arguing that Wilken did not properly consider NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In that case, the NCAA was denied control of college football television rights. The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal. The NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs.

So your quote of the "Old NCAA" should simply be providing additional funds to Student Athletes when their NIL is used outside of normal play on the field. I.E. name in a video game, commercial, billboard, jersey sell, .......It was never intended (just 3.5 years ago) for a school to pay a player millions, pick up $300,000 cars at dealerships, tampering, transferring for more, demanding anything from a coach etc....I'm not sure what more explanation you need but COLLEGE FOOTBALL is not and was not and should not be for this.

I don't care if NICO leads Tennesse to 3 straight NCAA Championships, paying him $8,000,000 is absolutely ridiculous and it started his senior year in high school and not even college. THAT IS F'ED UP! The argument that coaches can do it is absolutely stupid! The coach is a professional who HAS GONE TO COLLEGE AND is not enrolled in classes at the university and is paid to do a JOB! If another job is willing to pay him or her more, then because they are professionals, they have a right to barter that salary opportunity. This is the same as you can do with your career and anyone who is WORKING. The Student Athlete should come to the university because that's where they want to get their education and play for a school they love and want to be at. They should not be coming to that school because they will get paid more. That's the NFL a PAID job for professionals who have finished college and are now looking to expand on what they have learned and trained for.
IT'S COLLEGE AND COLLEGE FOOTBALL. IT'S NOT THE NFL AND PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL!

College football may survive, but as we know and love, it will never be the same unless major changes happen very quickly. If people cannot realize what coaches, and leaders, "NOT KIDS" are saying, then there is no hope, and it will die! MONEY AND GREED ARE AT THE ROOT!

The coaches are “professional” we’re talking about a kids sport grown men are playing for our entertainment, they are not doctors your “opinion” loses steam right there…

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Understand they are different. I get your point.

But allowing the collectives to write contracts with performance bonuses and terms solves a lot of problems. For those that say it creates problems for those that cannot bid, those problems have always been here. Schools like Bama and tOSU have always gotten away with paying and never got prosecuted. At least out in the open all pay is legal levels a lot of the field.

People may not like it but it keeps the employee and Title IX problems off the table and solves transfer portals.

It will take embracing some really off the wall ideas to solve the problem now. Trying to make tweaks to existing models is fruitless play.

The NIL collective COULD do that if they were actually part of university, but without that it doesn't work.

Imagine trying to enforce a "you have to stay at an entity not connected to this collective and have performance bonuses at that job not connected to me."

A LOT OF THINGS COULD AFFECT THAT SITUATION WHICH THE NIL HAS NO CONTROL OVER. The school might decide it doesn't want the player anymore. A coach might suck making performance bonuses impossible for the player. The player might get injured.

What you want is pro players control without calling them pro players. You want contracts, performance incentives, etc BUT you still want them to be "student athletes" legally.

Here's an idea: how about admitting you WANT the players to sit down and shut up and entertain you like the old days and have no control over nor profit from their college career except the old dirty money they got.

Just admit you don't like that athletes aren't second class Americans and deserve rights. You want the schools to have the power, like they did for years, and control what the athletes can make and where they can attend. You don't want them having the rights of other students.

Just be honest.

 

[sami]

It dies t mean anything to me???

That's absolute bunk. My entire point is that it's about the TEAM, not the individuals.

VFL doesn't mean "Peyton Manning for life" or "Reggie White for life".

I like to watch college football and I'm a lifelong Vol fan. I was a season ticket holder for more that 20 years until I moved too far away to regularly make game weekends.

However, I don't live and die over what any individual does in a stadium.

I bet you can't name 10 players on the Michigan 2023-2024 natty team, but I bet you knew that Michigan won it.

I don't and never have 'lived or died' based on the performance of any athlete or sports team.

Of course it's about the team - VFL is only about the individual in that it signifies a player who was here for 3-4 years and whose performance and/or leadership helped grow the program and who continue to support the program. It's not the individual himself, but what he meant to the program and the fan base. No offense, but it's kind of bizarre that you're a lifelong fan and don't get that.

 

[VOLfrombama]

If Nico wins 3 ships at UT, he is worth every penny. The revenue generated by that would pay his wages 10 fold.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

(1) There are college players who love their university, and would play there for free. There are. But they are--and have always been--out-numbered by those who look for the best combination of benefits, including $$$, path to NFL, atmosphere they're comfortable in, academics, and whatever else floats their boat. This has been true forever.

The "good ole days" of player loyalty to university were more often than not a fiction, a façade created by rules prohibiting players from transferring at will. For decades upon decades. The players have always been self-interested. That's just human nature.

...

(2) College kids have been working their way through school for hundreds of years, since colleges first existed. It is only under the restrictions of the NCAA that athletes under scholarship were prohibited from doing so. Particularly, were prohibited from being paid for the job they pour 40+ hours a week into (their sport). A brainiac double-majoring in physics and chemistry could get a job at the local wal-mart or wherever he's willing to devote 20-40 hours a week, in order to earn cash; why can't a football player?

The NCAA was always wrong to prohibit this. The courts just finally got involved and "caught up."

...

(3) As long as they're students in good standing--as long as it is required that they be students in good standing--I don't see the issue. They're still student athletes, college sports remain intrinsically different than pro sports, and YOUR school loyalty isn't affected one whit by the palyers' more frequent movements and income.

I honestly do not see the issue for you or me.

...

(4) Some say "everything has changed" concerning NIL and the portal. I think relatively little has changed, actually. Players are still getting paid, it's just out in the open (and bigger $$$). They're still student-athletes. They still pick their destinations based on a variety of factors. We're still gonna whup Bama's and Florida's butts whenever we can.

The rest is just details.

Go Vols!

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

(1) There are college players who love their university, and would play there for free. There are. But they are out-numbered by those who look for the best combination of benefits, including $$$, path to NFL, atmosphere they're comfortable in, academics, and whatever else floats their boat. And here's the kicker: this has been true forever.

The days of player loyalty to university was, in part, always a façade created by the reality that players were not allowed to transfer. For decades upon decades. The players have always been self-interested. That's human nature, for many of us.

...

(2) College kids have been working their way through college since colleges first existed. It is only under the restrictions of the NCAA that athletes under scholarship were prohibited from doing so. Particularly, were prohibited from being paid for the job they pour 40+ hours a week into (their sport). A brainiac double-majoring in physics and chemistry could get a job at the local wal-mart or wherever he's willing to devote 20-40 hours a week, in order to earn cash; why can't a football player?

The NCAA was always wrong to prohibit this. The courts just finally got involved and "caught up."

...

(3) As long as they're students in good standing--as long as it is required that they be students in good standing--I don't see the issue. They're still student athletes, college sports remain intrinsically different than pro sports, and YOUR school loyalty isn't affected one whit by the palyers' more frequent movements and income.

I honestly do not see the issue for you or me.

...

(4) Some say "everything has changed" concerning NIL and the portal. I think relatively little has changed, actually. Players are still getting paid, it's just out in the open. They're still student-athletes. They still pick their destinations based on a variety of factors. We're still gonna whup Bama's and Florida's butts whenever we can.

The rest is just details.

Go Vols!

Except the courts are now consistently saying the "student athlete" model is in violation of Antitrust Law.

The Supreme Court strongly implied the athletes are employees, not student athletes.

That change will be massive and it's out of the hands of the NCAA, the schools, or the players.

At this point only Congress, who are as useless deodorant to a GA fan, can save the "student athlete" distinction for college athletes.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Except the courts are now consistently saying the "student athlete" model is in violation of Antitrust Law.

No, they're not. The courts are not saying that at all.

Nowhere in any court ruling does it say that the players should not remain students. Nowhere. In fact, the courts seem well disposed to the idea of the student-athlete. They simply posit that schools, conferences, and the NCAA should not stand in the way of players--students--who want to try to profit financially from their situation.

Your misunderstanding seems to stem from an errant belief that a person can not both be an employee AND a student. He or she can, easily. Happens all the time, already, all over the nation and world.

When and if the court findings mention an impermissible "student athlete model," one should put the emphasis entirely on the word "model": the NCAA's model of what a student athlete should be. That has been struck down. But student athletes have not.

Go Vols!


p.s. Here's a fascinating bit of info: Of the University of Tennessee's roughly 20,000 employees, more are STUDENTS than any other category. There are roughly 2k faculty, 5k non-academic staff, 3k temps, and--get ready for it--9k student employees. One in every four students at UTK is also an employee of the university.

Sure, our players can be student-athletes and employees at the same time. Just an extension of a relationship that already exists widely in Knoxville, and elsewhere around the world.

Source: Data Central | The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

 

[tennesseeduke]

The NCAA's sports model is illegal under federal law. So says the concurring SCOTUS opinion in the Alston case.

Your contention is a false dilemma frosted with non sequiturs.

Lol

 

[tennesseeduke]

No, they're not. The courts are not saying that at all.

Nowhere in any court ruling does it say that the players should not remain students. Nowhere. In fact, the courts seem well disposed to the idea of the student-athlete. They simply posit that schools, conferences, and the NCAA should not stand in the way of players--students--who want to try to profit financially from their situation.

Your misunderstanding seems to stem from an errant belief that a person can not both be an employee AND a student. He or she can, easily. Happens all the time, already, all over the nation and world.

When and if the court findings mention an impermissible "student athlete model," one should put the emphasis entirely on the word "model": the NCAA's model of what a student athlete should be. That has been struck down. But student athletes have not.

Go Vols!

VFL 82 well said

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

No, they're not. The courts are not saying that at all.

Nowhere in any court ruling does it say that the players should not remain students. Nowhere. In fact, the courts seem well disposed to the idea of the student-athlete. They simply posit that schools, conferences, and the NCAA should not stand in the way of players--students--who want to try to profit financially from their situation.

Your misunderstanding seems to stem from an errant belief that a person can not both be an employee AND a student. He or she can, easily. Happens all the time, already, all over the nation and world.

When and if the court findings mention an impermissible "student athlete model," one should put the emphasis entirely on the word "model": the NCAA's model of what a student athlete should be. That has been struck down. But student athletes have not.

Go Vols!

Certainly Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly likened college athletes to chefs, lawyers, etc as employees who should be compensated by their employer, the schools.

Certainly, an employee can be compelled to attend school related to their employment but I'm unsure you can simply insist an employee work full-time AND attend school full-time in a completely different field to their employment.

Maybe, but I'll assume with employee status comes collective bargaining.

Along with revenue sharing, salary caps, free agency rules, and likely a draft of some kind from high school to maintain parity, I'll bet the "student" requirement for athlete employees will be on the table.

 

[tennesseeduke]

The NCAA isn't trying to repair it. They're trying to save their illegal business model.

The only way they can get their interference with NIL and their bogus transfer limits back is to get a federal Antitrust exemption.

That carries the price of paid athletes, unionization, union contracts, and the potential for strikes or other job actions.

Either way, the old NCAA business model is dead.

The court ruling for Ed O’Bannon was not and did not say the NCAA did anything illegal, I’m not sure why people keep saying that! It’s only illegal if a person name image or likeness is used to earn money without the permission of the athlete. When you sign to play, you also sign that you will play on TV etc …. No where does it state the NCAA or School owes you anything for wearing the company logo! WTF do people not understand about this? It’s not hard but people are making this way to difficult?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The court ruling for Ed O’Bannon was not and did not say the NCAA did anything illegal, I’m not sure why people keep saying that! It’s only illegal if a person name image or likeness is used to earn money without the permission of the athlete. When you sign to play, you also sign that you will play on TV etc …. No where does it state the NCAA or School owes you anything for wearing the company logo! WTF do people not understand about this? It’s not hard but people are making this way to difficult?

That's a non sequitur.

It has nothing to do with an individual earning NIL.

NIL isn't paid by the schools.

 

[Volfan1000]

I'm reposting my thoughts from another thread and I know I'm beating a dead horse, but this was got me thinking about differences in college and pros in response on the other thread. We all have opinions and I certainly respect them, and we all will not agree on everything, that's what makes VOLNATION blog site so great. I've been on here for a long time myself and I've been a UT fan for 53 years. I've seen great players during that span give their all for Tennessee and that is what makes me love all sports in college. (Reggie White, Condredge Holloway, Dale Carter, Peyton Manning, Bernard King, Grant Williams, Monica Abbot, Candice Parker, Jamal Lewis, Casey Clausen, Tee Martin, Eric Ainge, Leonard Little, Al Wilson, Heath Shular, Tony Robinson, Alan Cockrell...... All those players and many more came to UT AND GAVE THEIR ALL AS VFLs. That's why I love college sports and not so much pro. I will say, I'm not much of a pro fan not near the level I am for college. I'll take a day off from work to go to a UT game. I'll check my phone for my favorite pro team score. That's the difference.

Below is my response from the other thread question:
The Old NCAA rules as you put them, became an issue only when Ed O'Bannon realized that he could be paid for the use of his NIL. I'm sorry it's not federal law breaking what's happening in college athletics. If you ever read, then you would understand that the intent for NIL based on the Courts ruling of they said laws you are claiming broken was full cost of attendance at the school, Scholarships for Athletes, living expenses, and anything that the NCAA was not covering already. Football players were making on top of all that before this debacle an average prior to 2020 $30,000 to $40,000 each on top of all other expenses paid. O'Bannon also won from the Supreme Court $42.2 million for fees and costs as his case went nearly 10 years. He did not win all that money because of NIL itself! Read below the following based on the court ruling:

The trial against the NCAA lasted from June 9 to June 27, 2014. Final written closing statements were submitted on July 10.

On August 8, 2014, Wilken ruled that the NCAA's long-held practice of barring payments to athletes violated antitrust laws. She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility.

The NCAA subsequently appealed the ruling, arguing that Wilken did not properly consider NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In that case, the NCAA was denied control of college football television rights. The Supreme Court denied the NCAA's appeal. The NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs.

So your quote of the "Old NCAA" should simply be providing additional funds to Student Athletes when their NIL is used outside of normal play on the field. I.E. name in a video game, commercial, billboard, jersey sell, .......It was never intended (just 3.5 years ago) for a school to pay a player millions, pick up $300,000 cars at dealerships, tampering, transferring for more, demanding anything from a coach etc....I'm not sure what more explanation you need but COLLEGE FOOTBALL is not and was not and should not be for this.

I don't care if NICO leads Tennesse to 3 straight NCAA Championships, paying him $8,000,000 is absolutely ridiculous and it started his senior year in high school and not even college. THAT IS F'ED UP! The argument that coaches can do it is absolutely stupid! The coach is a professional who HAS GONE TO COLLEGE AND is not enrolled in classes at the university and is paid to do a JOB! If another job is willing to pay him or her more, then because they are professionals, they have a right to barter that salary opportunity. This is the same as you can do with your career and anyone who is WORKING. The Student Athlete should come to the university because that's where they want to get their education and play for a school they love and want to be at. They should not be coming to that school because they will get paid more. That's the NFL a PAID job for professionals who have finished college and are now looking to expand on what they have learned and trained for.
IT'S COLLEGE AND COLLEGE FOOTBALL. IT'S NOT THE NFL AND PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL!

College football may survive, but as we know and love, it will never be the same unless major changes happen very quickly. If people cannot realize what coaches, and leaders, "NOT KIDS" are saying, then there is no hope, and it will die! MONEY AND GREED ARE AT THE ROOT!

Future law school professors will use this NIL case as a course in their classrooms.

 

[volfan102455]

Hopefully Nico will be worth his massive fee.

Is he better than Manning? Because that is what the fee says he is. If he isn't this place will melt down, that is a given.

 

[volfan102455]

The NCAA's sports model is illegal under federal law. So says the concurring SCOTUS opinion in the Alston case.

Your contention is a false dilemma frosted with non sequiturs.

Then the high school model is illegal and the little league model, etc. Then lets also go to any type of activity that makes money and awards scholarships but doesn't treat those who participate as employees. Let's just start paying the really young kids that participate in any activity money.

The SCOTUS opinion if implemented will lead to money for a few coupled with less opportunities for most. That is the sad part that many of you don't seem to grasp or care about. As long as the team you support survives, you are fine even if it leads to limiting the opportunity for many to get an education.

I would be embarrassed if the University from which I earned my education is the leader in something that limits opportunities for students.

 

[volfan102455]

That's a non sequitur.

It has nothing to do with an individual warming NIL.

NIL isn't paid by the schools.

The intent of NIL was for it to be school agnostic. It isn't and that is the problem.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Is he better than Manning? Because that is what the fee says he is. If he isn't this place will melt down, that is a given.

No. What the fee says is our program has been in the shitter for the last 10+ years and we had to overpay to get the QB that CJH wanted.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Is he better than Manning? Because that is what the fee says he is. If he isn't this place will melt down, that is a given.

It doesn't say anything about Manning.
It says that Nico's NIL collective thinks he is worth it.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The intent of NIL was for it to be school agnostic. It isn't and that is the problem.

There was no such intent on the part of the collectives. What anyone thought doesn't matter. Clearly what matters is that NIL is legal in its present form.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The court ruling for Ed O’Bannon was not and did not say the NCAA did anything illegal, I’m not sure why people keep saying that! It’s only illegal if a person name image or likeness is used to earn money without the permission of the athlete. When you sign to play, you also sign that you will play on TV etc …. No where does it state the NCAA or School owes you anything for wearing the company logo! WTF do people not understand about this? It’s not hard but people are making this way to difficult?

When the schools or the NCAA used name, image, and/or likeness to advertise their brand and denied that same use to the individuals, it was illegal. Both the O'Bannon and Alston case decisions affirmed that was illegal.

Tennessee is smart to lead the charge in pushing back against that practice.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Then the high school model is illegal and the little league model, etc. Then lets also go to any type of activity that makes money and awards scholarships but doesn't treat those who participate as employees. Let's just start paying the really young kids that participate in any activity money.

The SCOTUS opinion if implemented will lead to money for a few coupled with less opportunities for most. That is the sad part that many of you don't seem to grasp or care about. As long as the team you support survives, you are fine even if it leads to limiting the opportunity for many to get an education.

I would be embarrassed if the University from which I earned my education is the leader in something that limits opportunities for students.

Apples and oranges. No high school or high school association prevents athletes from profiting from their NIL endorsements like the NCAA did.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

M

Then the high school model is illegal and the little league model, etc. Then lets also go to any type of activity that makes money and awards scholarships but doesn't treat those who participate as employees. Let's just start paying the really young kids that participate in any activity money.

The SCOTUS opinion if implemented will lead to money for a few coupled with less opportunities for most. That is the sad part that many of you don't seem to grasp or care about. As long as the team you support survives, you are fine even if it leads to limiting the opportunity for many to get an education.

I would be embarrassed if the University from which I earned my education is the leader in something that limits opportunities for students.

Money redistribution? So what. The law supercedes NCAA rules, every time.

It would be embarrassing for UT to NOT support pushing back against the NCAA's illegal model.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

The intent of NIL was for it to be school agnostic. It isn't and that is the problem.

School funded NIL would probably introduce caps and regulations which will be a nightmare for schools “wanting to truly play by the rules again in recruiting” because nobody did prior to NIL, even us.

NIL effectively ended the booster network of under the table bs that was obviously going on in recruiting witch the NCAA absolutely turned a blind eye to it and selectively enforced their rules while only a handful of schools prospered…yeah no not going back to that time in Tenn history that wasn’t the whole problem but it certainly didn’t help

 

[woodpusher]

The NCAA's sports model is illegal under federal law. So says the concurring SCOTUS opinion in the Alston case.

Your contention is a false dilemma frosted with non sequiturs.

It's the majority (Gorsuch) opinion that carries the day, no? The concurring opinion (Kavanagh) could not have been supported by more than 4 justices, else it would be the majority opinion, no?

 

[Ratvol]

All this talk about NIL gives me gas.