Transfer Portal is a disaster

[hog88]

Players can sign multiple NIL deals like Peyton makes commercials for everyone.

It's a non-starter legally to force a person to "sign with one company" for NIL.

I didn't say anything about forcing them to sign with one company.

The vast majority, probably 90% or more of college athletes only NIL money comes from the collective associated with the school and that is who I'm advocating be allowed to offer 2-3 year binding deals. Guy is high profile enough to sign NIL deals outside of the collective, great nothing is stopping them.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I didn't say anything about forcing them to sign with one company.

The vast majority, probably 90% or more of college athletes only NIL money comes from the collective associated with the school and that is who I'm advocating be allowed to offer 2-3 year binding deals. Guy is high profile enough to sign NIL deals outside of the collective, great nothing is stopping them.

So if a kid is worth 10k per year and Spyre signs them to an NIL for 3 years, the kid can STILL transfer and Spyre still has to pay him at another school.

Sure, he doesn't get a raise, but Spyre is on the hook paying the NIL for another school's player. Uh....... that's not what Spyre wants to do.

 

[hog88]

So if a kid is worth 10k per year and Spyre signs them to an NIL for 3 years, the kid can STILL transfer and Spyre still has to pay him at another school.

Sure, he doesn't get a raise, but Spyre is on the hook paying the NIL for another school's player. Uh....... that's not what Spyre wants to do.

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

No. This is simple, I'm proposing the NCAA allow collectives to offer muti-year contracts to the athletes. If an athlete signs with Spyre for whatever amount and decides to transfer they could not sign with another collective and if they cannot meet the requirements of their contract then the collective wouldn't have to pay. This would not preclude an athlete signing an NIL deal with anyone else other than another collective.

Since the vast majority of athletes receive no NIL money outside of the associated collective it may deter a lot of the free agency we're seeing.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

No. This is simple, I'm proposing the NCAA allow collectives to offer muti-year contracts to the athletes. If an athlete signs with Spyre for whatever amount and decides to transfer they could not sign with another collective and if they cannot meet the requirements of their contract then the collective wouldn't have to pay. This would not preclude an athlete signing an NIL deal with anyone else other than another collective.

Since the vast majority of athletes receive no NIL money outside of the associated collective it may deter a lot of the free agency we're seeing.

That's what I'm getting at. If an athlete transfers, Spyre has put itself on the hook to continue to pay whatever NIL OR Spyre cancels the contract because of the athlete not fulfilling the contract and accomplished nothing because then they can sign elsewhere.

 

[hog88]

That's what I'm getting at. If an athlete transfers, Spyre has put itself on the hook to continue to pay whatever NIL OR Spyre cancels the contract because of the athlete not fulfilling the contract and accomplished nothing because then they can sign elsewhere.

Why would they have to pay or cancel the contract? No work, no pay.

 

[volfan102455]

Yeah but 18 year olds aren't expected to abide by contracts; they have no idea what they are signing.

At 18 they are bound to the contract they sign. If they don't understand it, they should be engaging with someone that can explain it to them.

 

[volfan102455]

Why would they have to pay or cancel the contract? No work, no pay.

Exactly. And at some point these will have costs that players will have to pay to 'opt out' of the contract to protect those funding the contract.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Why would they have to pay or cancel the contract? No work, no pay.

There's only a few options when a contract is breached. Terminate or try to get the person to fulfill it. That can include suing for damages due to the unfulfilled contract but.......

You think Spyre is going to get the reputation for SUING athletes who transfer for breach of contract? You think that's a decent use of money by Spyre?

It doesn't work.

 

[guido4198]

It’s an absolute abortion

A totally predictable one at that. Anyone with two brain cells that can talk to each other saw this coming. This bowl season’s fiasco was no surprise. It’s only going to get worse as players “ lawyer up”, get agents and Ad agencies involved to maximize their earnings.
For better or worse, like it or not we are watching the end of college football as we’ve known it.
It was fun while it lasted.

 

[volfan102455]

I will just summarize to say, the process is like the wild west right now with no rules or controls. If left to its own device, it will eventually break the bank and spin off all kinds of challenges and hard luck stories. The businesses that are supporting these players are in this for money - if at any point they realize the connection to a player is not generating them capital - they will leave.

Like it or not, the connection to a university and the advertisement that is generated by the player participating on the field with that university is what is driving the dollars and public awareness of said player. This is generally not a player figuring out how to promote their own brand.

 

[volfan102455]

Ask yourself - would you buy Nico's products if he was not the QB at Tennessee? The answer for the majority is probably no.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I will just summarize to say, the process is like the wild west right now with no rules or controls. If left to its own device, it will eventually break the bank and spin off all kinds of challenges and hard luck stories. The businesses that are supporting these players are in this for money - if at any point they realize the connection to a player is not generating them capital - they will leave.

Like it or not, the connection to a university and the advertisement that is generated by the player participating on the field with that university is what is driving the dollars and public awareness of said player. This is generally not a player figuring out how to promote their own brand.

You act like the players or teams or NCAA is creating this.

The NCAA is consistently losing cases in court because they're not in compliance with Federal Law. According to Justice Kavanaugh, the entire business model of the NCAA is probably in violation of Antitrust Law.

It's not like the NCAA hasn't seen this coming for years and done NOTHING but fight in court and lose.

Short of Congress (can you imagine Congress being the one you're depending on to help you?) giving college football an antitrust exemption, the NCAA is in trouble.

The NCAA SHOULD have been working on an Antitrust exemption for many, many years and didn't. And here we are.

It's all squarely on the shoulders of the NCAA for mismanaging the sport.

 

[SprocketRocket]

It will sort itself out. Give it 2-3 years. The imbalances will find resistance limits. Any static system will take time to find a new equilibrium when the forces in that system change drastically. I think it actually will have a tendency to balance out the talent across many more schools. Instead of Alabama and Georgia lining their bench with 5 stars that feel stuck, they will go where they can play. A win for everyone except Bama and Georgia.

I wish I had your confidence. I don't see this ever balancing itself out. It is true that players want to play, but money talks. I see the pendulum swinging in only one direction, and I fear the result will be the system toppling over. The courts are the only thing that could change the direction of this runaway train, and they have every reason not to.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

There's only a few options when a contract is breached. Terminate or try to get the person to fulfill it. That can include suing for damages due to the unfulfilled contract but.......

You think Spyre is going to get the reputation for SUING athletes who transfer for breach of contract? You think that's a decent use of money by Spyre?

It doesn't work.

Why wouldn't it? They are no longer naive 18 year olds. They are professionals. They need to grow the **** up and act like it.

It's a brave new world.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Ask yourself - would you buy Nico's products if he was not the QB at Tennessee? The answer for the majority is probably no.

I won't buy them just because he is, either. But then again, I don't slobber at the feet of celebrity. I've been around my fair share of it too

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Why wouldn't it? They are no longer naive 18 year olds. They are professionals. They need to grow the **** up and act like it.

It's a brave new world.

Spyre only hurts UT as a brand if they try to sign long-term contracts then sue to enforce them.

I recall the kid from FL who signed a dreadful and bogus "NIL" deal and that company came after his earnings after he was drafted because that was the contract. Okay, yeah, read contracts before you sign them. He's an idiot.

But who is going to sign with that company after that? Spyre would hurt the UT brand to try to punish kids who transfer because other schools aren't going to be doing that kind of thing.

 

[Voltopia]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

No. This is simple, I'm proposing the NCAA allow collectives to offer muti-year contracts to the athletes. If an athlete signs with Spyre for whatever amount and decides to transfer they could not sign with another collective and if they cannot meet the requirements of their contract then the collective wouldn't have to pay. This would not preclude an athlete signing an NIL deal with anyone else other than another collective.

Since the vast majority of athletes receive no NIL money outside of the associated collective it may deter a lot of the free agency we're seeing.

Why should the NCAA have any say in whether contracts are multi-year? What business is it of the NCAA's as to what contracts players enter into with private NIL entities? If a player wants to break a contract and take up a new contract with another collective, that should be their right. This is a capitalist country and any attempt to prevent players from profiting from their name and likeness is unacceptable.

I don't really mean that of course, but that's what people will say. And then they'll sue whoever and whatever they can get their hands on, to prove it - and to make some more money, of course.

 

[Voltopia]

It's all squarely on the shoulders of the NCAA for mismanaging the sport.

I would argue it's on the schools for mismanaging the sport. The NCAA was their proxy, and could only construct frameworks the schools would accept. Saying that the NCAA should have pursued an antitrust exemption is easy. Getting the schools to agree to the changes necessary to obtain that antitrust exemption was probably impossible (at the time, anyway).

What really happened was that the schools took all that TV money and then let the NCAA deal with the repercussions -- more or less -- and that's what the NCAA did, up until everyone decided to take them to court. At which point the NCAA said "fine, do whatever you want, we're done with this." And again, I don't blame the NCAA one bit for washing their hands of this. They shouldn't be responsible for justifying the greed that drove this train off the tracks.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I would argue it's on the schools for mismanaging the sport. The NCAA was their proxy, and could only construct frameworks the schools would accept. Saying that the NCAA should have pursued an antitrust exemption is easy. Getting the schools to agree to the changes necessary to obtain that antitrust exemption was probably impossible (at the time, anyway).

What really happened was that the schools took all that TV money and then let the NCAA deal with the repercussions -- more or less -- and that's what the NCAA did, up until everyone decided to take them to court. At which point the NCAA said "fine, do whatever you want, we're done with this." And again, I don't blame the NCAA one bit for washing their hands of this. They shouldn't be responsible for justifying the greed that drove this train off the tracks.

I'll agree it goes straight back to the greed of major conferences and schools.

The NCAA Board of Governors IS essentially a bunch of academics and school admins. They had access to legal advice that saw all this unfolding.

The major conferences were greedy, really greedy, and had a good bit of control over the NCAA. They set the NCAA on a course to fight legally instead of make changes while the big conferences cashed big checks.

NOTHING was done for the good of the sport, the athletes, and the long-term sustainability of the business model. It was all about big money for the major schools.

Blaming the current crop of athletes for this is ridiculous. The vindictiveness against the athletes is misplaced.

Nico was 14 or 15 when Alston was originally filed. All he did or any other athlete of his era did was grow up with God given talent and work hard to develop like generations of athletes before him. These athletes don't control the NCAA nor the courts. They deal with the rules and practices in front of them just like the old school athletes dealt with the rules and under the table money.

 

[woodpusher]

If the NCAA did pursue an anti-trust exemption, would that be an admission that the players are employees?

 

[hog88]

Spyre only hurts UT as a brand if they try to sign long-term contracts then sue to enforce them.

I recall the kid from FL who signed a dreadful and bogus "NIL" deal and that company came after his earnings after he was drafted because that was the contract. Okay, yeah, read contracts before you sign them. He's an idiot.

But who is going to sign with that company after that? Spyre would hurt the UT brand to try to punish kids who transfer because other schools aren't going to be doing that kind of thing.

You're making the incorrect assumption that only Spryre would be doing that. If the NCAA allowed it most if not all collectives would start using that model.

 

[hog88]

Why should the NCAA have any say in whether contracts are multi-year? What business is it of the NCAA's as to what contracts players enter into with private NIL entities? If a player wants to break a contract and take up a new contract with another collective, that should be their right. This is a capitalist country and any attempt to prevent players from profiting from their name and likeness is unacceptable.

I don't really mean that of course, but that's what people will say. And then they'll sue whoever and whatever they can get their hands on, to prove it - and to make some more money, of course.

It's not any of the NCAAs business but currently it's not allowed so the NCAA is sticking it's nose into it.

Correct, if a player wants to break a contract with a collective they should be free to do so without any ramifications from the NCAA. The only ramifications would come from whatever is agreed to in their contract with the collective.

WTF is trying to prevent players from profiting from their NIL?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You're making the incorrect assumption that only Spryre would be doing that. If the NCAA allowed it most if not all collectives would start using that model.

Doubtful. It's not good competitively. The NIL market continues to be stupid crazy because everyone wants a competitive advantage.

The long-term contract is not advantageous to the players and the players get nothing in return for restricting themselves.

Schools that don't do suggest a long-term contract would have an advantage.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

If the NCAA did pursue an anti-trust exemption, would that be an admission that the players are employees?

The courts are assuming and treating the players like employees now. That's essentially what Alston vs NCAA did. The SCOTUS said directly: the NCAA is not above the law. They were talking about Antitrust Law.

In the WV case, concerning eligibility after a second transfer, that Federal judge used the Alston determination to conclude the NCAA's restriction on eligibility was a violation of Antitrust Law.

BTW, I'm not an attorney. I'm not sure about Antitrust Law applying to non-emplyees but the courts seem to be saying the NCAA needs to prove they aren't.

 

[87&91ALUM]

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs." 1 Timothy 6:10 When you trade money for spiritual wealth, this is what happens. To think NCAA, UT Sports, etc., is immune from lusting after money, you would be naïve and mistaken. I enjoy high school sports and activities that have not been dominated by money. Give me a fishing pole or a hike in the woods any day over pay for play. Love my Vols but, find myself supporting the lessor funded sports. NFL/NBA are a joke.