Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#103,352
#103,352
Ttucke11 said:
Every conference gets a rep or maybe a distribution of reps based on conference "power". Conferences can figure that part out. The reps form a Board in which they rule on ethics and policies. Every D1 school with a rep gets a compliance officer who is assigned on site at the school. Any questions regarding ethics, policies, NIL, etc can be directed towards officer. If its run through the officer and a later issue pops up, schools are in the clear for acting in good faith.

Actually come up with rules will help. But you nip everything in the bud immediately. Having a 3rd party isn't in anyone interests. Run it like a republic.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly thinking "Benevolent Dictator"

I like @Jimmy Football idea of Charles Davis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hooter vol, TN-POSSUM, Volunteer821 and 2 others
#103,353
#103,353
knoxvol52 said:
Would have to be an individual who has no ties to any team of either conference..

Preferably a complete total unknown.
Click to expand...
Anarchy—or the removal of the NCAA oversight functions—favors the richest programs, as most rules aim at competitive balance. Think scholarship limits, oversigning rules, etc.

I don’t know why everyone seems convinced that curtailing the NCAA will help Tennessee more than it will help Texas, Michigan, or [insert rich program here]. Winning the battle over Nico is obviously important, but not if it means that Texas A&M’s oil money can openly buy players without caps on amounts or the number of players.
 
#103,355
#103,355
@jave36 One thing the NCAA's actions show here (to reiterate an old point in this new light) is that Saban's putative cleverness had nothing to do with his and Bama's corrupt exemption from rules enforcement. Saban's so-called "plausible deniability" (never plausible) by means of having his dirty work conducted by third-parties did not shield him from enforcement, except by the NCAA's choice. This was always vividly clear imo. But the NCAA has now demonstrated in deed that all they had needed to do was to decide for themselves without warning that their new policy was to presume Bama guilty until proven innocence; declare any such third-party a booster; and then rain hell down on Bama beginning with Saban's first (Julio) recruiting class. It was always and only the crooked NCAA's crookedly granting Saban exemption from enforcement that was a necessary condition of Saban's so-called achievement. Saban bought every class. The NCAA turned a blind eye to Bama and Saban by means illegal, immoral, corrupt, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the NCAA's very reason for existing; all the while lording over others, thereby by its policy precluding parity, fair competition, and justice in college football.

I don't want to re-hash the whole question, but I think it is worthwhile to compare the two instances. The NCAA's "cover story" is dead at the NCAA's own hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
#103,356
#103,356
The thing is the NCAA "governs" a lot of sports and they've had plenty of issues elsewhere with eligibility. The Olympics and sports featured there, swimming, track & field, gymnastics etc. come to mind as previous issues where student athletes were essentially being punished for "professional" gains from Olympic success.

I could see each conference acting as the "owner" and there being a "commissioner" for college football similar to the NFL structure. Likely having a player's union as well. With other sports I'm not sure what model would be followed. The NBA most likely just removes the "1 year away from HS" restriction and takes their chances with elite HS players being eligible immediately.

Don't think college sports will really suffer, what's happening is the old political folks (NCAA) are losing $$$ and control and a lot of their big paying lobbyist are essentially no longer padding their pockets as it's not needed if they can spend the money above table and directly buy/pay their talent.
 
#103,361
#103,361
GoodTimeVol said:
Selective enforcement is ridiculous I agree but to me making rules that violate antitrust laws in which the ncaa has already lost out on in court and labeling a private business as a “booster” also doesn’t seem like it will fly in court but im no law professor.

I could care less when they made the rule. That to me is a non-issue its just the rule is a clear violation of antitrust laws and we already know the ncaa has no antitrust provision like the NFL,MLB, and NBA etc do.
Click to expand...
The NFL/MLB/NBA anti-trust provision is paying unionized players a lot of money via a collective bargaining structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, Vols4us, Volunteer821 and 2 others
#103,363
#103,363
Orange_Crush said:
The NFL/MLB/NBA anti-trust provision is paying unionized players a lot of money via a collective bargaining structure.
Click to expand...
Most people haven’t quite arrived at the reality that there are two ways forward: no limits, or collectively bargained limits.

If there was another way, the big professional leagues would have figured it out by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glitch, Nash_Vol97, DD4ME and 6 others
#103,366
#103,366
Glitch said:
Morons don't understand that State laws and the lack of meaningful fair-minded rules from the NCAA left NIL wide open like the wild west., states stepped in and made their own rules. AA about to get curb stomped by the states and probably SCOTUS as well.
Click to expand...
The operating model was going to change irregardless but the NCAA hastened their own demise by sitting out covid, being reactive and not proactive in regards to transfer policy, and the same with NIL. Instead they buried their heads in the sand and now that they are forced to deal with it they are digging their heels in.
 
#103,367
#103,367
jave36 said:
This isn't an actual courts issue. Tennessee politicians are grandstanding, it would be very difficult to get a court of law actually involved here when UT has voluntarily joined a private group and agreed to abide by its rules. A court would say "you're welcome to leave that group if you don't like their rules, it's just an academic country club."

And contracts that say "this is the reason we're doing this" are often disregarded. Do you really think any judge or jury would believe that Spyre would have given Nico 8 mil if he'd gone to Bama? That's the crux of your argument, that Spyre wanted Nico even if he went to Bama.
Click to expand...
That's not how it works. A member institution can sue for how they are financially affected by capriciousness and favoritism in upholding bylaws. This isn't a country club. It is a multi-billion dollar business, and that's EXACTLY what the courts are there for.

The contract in question doesn't say, "This is why we're doing this." I don;t mean to be rude, but are you arguing a subject you haven't even familiarized yourself with? Spyre's attorney released a statement that claims that the contract doesn't make any distinction or demand on what school Nico signs with. As a matter of fact: The claim is that the contract was written with the specific statement that Spyre would fultill their obligations independent of Nico's school choice.

You seem to be arguing that the courts will read that, ignore it, see that they abided the contract as written, and then judge against Spyre/UT because the NCAA claims incredulity as to what they WOULD HAVE done in an alternate universe.

You seem to think that attributed, unproven motives would supersede written contracts and actual actions.

So, yes. That's the crux of the argument. And the courts aren't in the business of reading tea leaves for alternate universe fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner, 85SugarVol, Ulysees E. McGill and 15 others
#103,369
#103,369
Orange_Crush said:
That's not how it works. A member institution can sue for how they are financially affected by capriciousness and favoritism in upholding bylaws. This isn't a country club. It is a multi-billion dollar business, and that's EXACTLY what the courts are there for.

The contract in question doesn't say, "This is why we're doing this." I don;t mean to be rude, but are you arguing a subject you haven't even familiarized yourself with? Spyre's attorney released a statement that claims that the contract doesn't make any distinction or demand on what school Nico signs with. As a matter of fact: The claim is that the contract was written with the specific statement that Spyre would fultill their obligations independent of Nico's school choice.

You seem to be arguing that the courts will read that, ignore it, see that they abided the contract as written, and then judge against Spyre/UT because the NCAA claims incredulity as to what they WOULD HAVE done in an alternate universe.

You seem to think that attributed, unproven motives would supersede written contracts and actual actions.

So, yes. That's the crux of the argument. And the courts aren't in the business of reading tea leaves for alternate universe fiction.
Click to expand...
Thank you better than my response to him and it’s obvious he has no clue what the lawsuit is about nor does he understand why the ncaa is in clear violation of antitrust laws.
 
#103,370
#103,370
SoullessGinger32_ said:
I think we all know why they chose Tennessee.......come on people. All this takes place after Saban retires. And it just so happens that it's about the QB that he went all in on in 23 but lost the recruiting battle over NIL. This is all Saban folks
Click to expand...
amen....he really is a whiny little beotch
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glitch, Ulysees E. McGill, Palm Beach Vol and 3 others
#103,371
#103,371
Ten_Titans said:
I think that is very elegant. Very close to what UT will say in court. And what the court will most likely side with.

I also think it's 90% BS, frankly. Players have the right to pursue interests related to their NIL, and that is obviously not what NIL means to anyone in this space. Outside of maybe Peyton Manning, there has never been a player donning a Tennessee uniform that has had a multimillion dollar evaluation associated with their name, image, and likeness.

We are all friends here. The NCAA isn't going to read this. Everyone here does understand this is all BS, right? Like we do all understand that Nico signing with Spyre and Nico signing with UT weren't actually independent events, right?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all those people posting unpaid advertising in this forum for the Volunteer Club are just super passionate about UT players getting some money. And they have zero expectations that will impact recruiting 😅.

I think we can all be serious here. 10-15% of the money going through Spyre or NIL more generally is because someone wants to put a player on a sign at their car dealership. Or whatever. The rest is for buying players.
Click to expand...
It's not BS. It's constitutional rights. I'm not writing this thinking it will somehow benefit UT's case. It's the truth. Period.

The athletes have a right to unimpeded NIL profits. The NCAA is being forced to make a distinction on what that actually is, in order to prevent pay-for-play. The fact of the matter is that, unless they can get Congress to give them an exemption from ant-trust laws, that is illegal collusion as well, and will not hold up if taken to court.

So, the NCAA is trying to prevent the athlete of their right to free market NIL negotiations in order to protect a ban on their right to free market salary negotiations--both of which are illegal collusion under trust laws.

You're struggling to strain a gnat when both are interdependent camels in the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, TN-POSSUM, PKT_VOL and 11 others
#103,372
#103,372
Visidog said:
Anarchy—or the removal of the NCAA oversight functions—favors the richest programs, as most rules aim at competitive balance. Think scholarship limits, oversigning rules, etc.

I don’t know why everyone seems convinced that curtailing the NCAA will help Tennessee more than it will help Texas, Michigan, or [insert rich program here]. Winning the battle over Nico is obviously important, but not if it means that Texas A&M’s oil money can openly buy players without caps on amounts or the number of players.
Click to expand...
They already can. You cannot fight the market. Black, gray or stock the markets will always win. Segregate the lower budget schools, but stop pretending the money faucet was not already flowing. It is more unfair when Bama can avoid scrutiny BECAUSE the market is black and the cops enforcing are bought. If the market is free and open the playing field is at least equal. It will never be fair to schools with small budgets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volnukem, Ulysees E. McGill, Palm Beach Vol and 6 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top