UT under potential NCAA investigation for NIL

#1,526
#1,526
GUNTERSVOL said:
So, the NCAA should institute the draft for players. What law would prohibit that? Both sources of income are verifiable and the trade off for allowing players to have control of their landing spots without it is to report all earnings instead of just salary. The SCOTUS said they could not restrict THOSE earnings, not they could not require the reporting to compete in OTHERWISE amateur sports. Only way to not have to attempt to determine whether the deals are economically legitimate or winking level influence peddling by boosters. Welcome every player with every deal to pick a home from those schools with CAP ROOM the member institutions voted to self employ as competitive balancing mechanism, just like counter limits. Logically if 86 guys got NIL deals, one would have be denied a scholly at institution of choice. Uh Oh. Why not NIL cap too?

Deferred income WOULD BE an issue, that I guess would have to be charged to the last school to place on roster for the the years it is paid. Or some other smart guy solution.

Nothing is insurmountable based on the controlling decision unless the measure is specifically covered by it or other ruling during this transition.

For example, simply let every player having or wanting to get NIL, sign up to enter a new NCAA DRAFT to augment the rosters of those that do not in the amateur model up to this time. This would also be a mechanism. They get to play and get to get ALL the NIL money they can find. NOT LIKELY and NOT PRACTICAL, but could meet the language of the decision.

The cake and eating too mindset is an assumption. Creative solutions to preserve FAIRNESS will have to be floated. The forced acceptance of professional concepts will be addressed. The cost on All the non money making sports by the elimination of NCAA will force iterations of efforts for viability.
Click to expand...
You keep trying to cap NIL and I keep insisting, players can sign NIL AFTER THEY ARE PLAYING.

Then you said, "they should put a restriction on when NIL can be signed by players." That's not for the NCAA to regulate and they are being sued right now by TN and VA for trying to regulate NIL. It's a state issue, not an NCAA issue.

Your cap fails. You've been told this.

You cannot tell players when they can sign NIL deals so you cannot enforce a cap without forcing a school to dismiss an athlete for..... OMG..... making money legally according to state laws. Welcome to your next lawsuit.

I think you'd be really wise, were you running the NCAA, to deal with your current lawsuits by TN and VA for trying to override their NIL laws before you invite new ones. You'd be even wiser, as the NCAA will likely decide, to stop f-ing around with NIL laws so you can stop finding out how expensive it is to lose in court.
 
#1,527
#1,527
kcvols1 said:
Please, oh please explain the reasoning behind this sentence!
Click to expand...

Being in the Ivy league I seriously doubt that mens BB is a profitable venture for the school, if it even breaks even I would be surprised so why deal with the headache of a union for something that makes no money? The losses will only increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#1,532
#1,532
GUNTERSVOL said:
So, the NCAA should institute the draft for players. What law would prohibit that? Both sources of income are verifiable and the trade off for allowing players to have control of their landing spots without it is to report all earnings instead of just salary. The SCOTUS said they could not restrict THOSE earnings, not they could not require the reporting to compete in OTHERWISE amateur sports. Only way to not have to attempt to determine whether the deals are economically legitimate or winking level influence peddling by boosters. Welcome every player with every deal to pick a home from those schools with CAP ROOM the member institutions voted to self employ as competitive balancing mechanism, just like counter limits. Logically if 86 guys got NIL deals, one would have be denied a scholly at institution of choice. Uh Oh. Why not NIL cap too?

Deferred income WOULD BE an issue, that I guess would have to be charged to the last school to place on roster for the the years it is paid. Or some other smart guy solution.

Nothing is insurmountable based on the controlling decision unless the measure is specifically covered by it or other ruling during this transition.

For example, simply let every player having or wanting to get NIL, sign up to enter a new NCAA DRAFT to augment the rosters of those that do not in the amateur model up to this time. This would also be a mechanism. They get to play and get to get ALL the NIL money they can find. NOT LIKELY and NOT PRACTICAL, but could meet the language of the decision.

The cake and eating too mindset is an assumption. Creative solutions to preserve FAIRNESS will have to be floated. The forced acceptance of professional concepts will be addressed. The cost on All the non money making sports by the elimination of NCAA will force iterations of efforts for viability.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Idk what to tell you if you think this is a viable idea much less a good one. You’re going to force a kid to a school bc of a draft? You’re forcing programs to have more parity? The raw amount of money lost on tv contracts would be hilarious off hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolDave53
#1,533
#1,533
hog88 said:
Being in the Ivy league I seriously doubt that mens BB is a profitable venture for the school, if it even breaks even I would be surprised so why deal with the headache of a union for something that makes no money? The losses will only increase.
Click to expand...
Because if the hoops team performs well, you sell more swag and get more applications for paying students at $200k per year.
 
#1,537
#1,537
So, after reading ALL the threads and posts, I'm still confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am. The NCAA has said that student athletes are amateurs and the school cannot pay you to play at their school nor can a booster, or you lose your amateur status and will be ineligible. Which is what they've said all along and I think that's legal and not the crux of the SCOTUS ruling. They can also make a rule that the school cannot go around that rule and use a collective as a recruiting incentive as that would be against the amateur status. THE SCHOOL CANNOT DO THAT which is fine, I think. However, the NCAA cannot make any rules against a collective in offering a NIL contract as they are a separate business/entity. The collective can offer anything they want, even as a recruiting tool (look at Missouri State law). The NCAA cannot do anything about it unless the school is involved in anyway with the contract. SCOTUS has ruled they cannot restrict a players right to earn money but didn't say they can't regulate the school. I think that even if a collective stipulated a commitment to a certain school, the NCAA has no say in that, again as long as the school is not directly involved. So if the NCAA finds a school broke the rule of donors being involved(ie Miami) they can hand out punishment. If they find that a collective is doing this and the school had no direct involvement (tenn), they can't impose any punishment because they don't regulate a private business. It's been said that the NCAA investigators did not find any infractions and left. So did somebody higher up in the NCAA over rule that finding and made stuff up? If so, why? To hammer Tennessee or to force the courts or Congress to act? If that's the case, pretty stupid way to run a business/corporation. They could save a lot of money and pain by just forming a committee and hash out new rules and be done with it.
Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like an easy fix. Regulate the schools and stay out of the NIL stuff as it's not the NCAAs power to regulate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#1,538
#1,538
ATCVolinmn said:
So, after reading ALL the threads and posts, I'm still confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am. The NCAA has said that student athletes are amateurs and the school cannot pay you to play at their school nor can a booster, or you lose your amateur status and will be ineligible. Which is what they've said all along and I think that's legal and not the crux of the SCOTUS ruling. They can also make a rule that the school cannot go around that rule and use a collective as a recruiting incentive as that would be against the amateur status. THE SCHOOL CANNOT DO THAT which is fine, I think. However, the NCAA cannot make any rules against a collective in offering a NIL contract as they are a separate business/entity. The collective can offer anything they want, even as a recruiting tool (look at Missouri State law). The NCAA cannot do anything about it unless the school is involved in anyway with the contract. SCOTUS has ruled they cannot restrict a players right to earn money but didn't say they can't regulate the school. I think that even if a collective stipulated a commitment to a certain school, the NCAA has no say in that, again as long as the school is not directly involved. So if the NCAA finds a school broke the rule of donors being involved(ie Miami) they can hand out punishment. If they find that a collective is doing this and the school had no direct involvement (tenn), they can't impose any punishment because they don't regulate a private business. It's been said that the NCAA investigators did not find any infractions and left. So did somebody higher up in the NCAA over rule that finding and made stuff up? If so, why? To hammer Tennessee or to force the courts or Congress to act? If that's the case, pretty stupid way to run a business/corporation. They could save a lot of money and pain by just forming a committee and hash out new rules and be done with it.
Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like an easy fix. Regulate the schools and stay out of the NIL stuff as it's not the NCAAs power to regulate that.
Click to expand...
It was reported that the NCAA did not find any rules broken by UT employees. The NCAA then moved the goal post and said that Spye was a booster and therefore UT was in violation.

I read somewhere that UT has a rough draft of what the NCAA investigator gave them as the violations. Nothing formal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATCVolinmn
#1,539
#1,539
DaddyChad said:
Was already over with this is just piling on at this point. 😂
Click to expand...
They already introduced the bill in 2021. If they would have passed it back then UT wouldn't even be looking at an investigation.
The NCAA Accountability Act of 2021 touches on an oft-criticized process: the NCAA’s enforcement of violations through sometimes years-long investigations. The bill creates a set of deadlines to facilitate quicker investigations, shortens the statute of limitations on violations and establishes a new appeals process:

• The bill requires NCAA inquiries to be completed within eight months of a school receiving a notice that an investigation has opened.

• The NCAA, the bill says, cannot investigate violations that were alleged to have happened more than two years before the notice of investigation was sent to a school. The current statute of limitations is four years.

• The bill would prohibit the NCAA from using “confidential sources” as evidence for a decision.

• And a school can appeal punishments by using a three-arbiter panel, different from the NCAA’s current appeals committee.

The proposal also requires the NCAA to submit an annual report of investigations to the U.S. attorney general and each state’s attorney general while also charging the Department of Justice to ensure the governing body of college sports follows the bill’s statutes. Violations will be dealt with severely. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to fine the NCAA as much as $15 million and to order the removal of any member of the NCAA’s highest governing body, its Board of Governors.
 
#1,540
#1,540
kcvols1 said:
Because if the hoops team performs well, you sell more swag and get more applications for paying students at $200k per year.
Click to expand...
lol yeah Dartmouth basketball really driving apps. Come on. Hog is 100% correct. It's red number on the P&L. It will only get bigger when unionized. Drop it fast. Sorry not sorry to the players. Don't overplay your hand. A valuable lesson
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#1,543
#1,543
butchna said:
It’s Ivy League higher education. You don’t get begged to apply there.
Click to expand...
If you don’t think there’s ruthless competition for applications for high dollar private educational institutions not named Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, I’m pretty sure you’re mistaken.

There’s a BIG market for daddy’s money, baby!

Plus after 2025, the pool of high schoolers will start to shrink. Gotta gather the rosebuds.
 
#1,544
#1,544
kcvols1 said:
If you don’t think there’s ruthless competition for applications for high dollar private educational institutions not named Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, I’m pretty sure you’re mistaken.

There’s a BIG market for daddy’s money, baby!

Plus after 2025, the pool of high schoolers will start to shrink. Gotta gather the rosebuds.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I’m not. There has never been a case where a student chose Valdosta State over Dartmouth cuz Blazers rule!

Daddy wants his BABY to get a leg up and Ivy League graduate status is also bling for Pops.

When SUPPLY of qualified students dries up, the quality of the basketball program isn’t going to reverse it.
 
#1,550
#1,550
BigALWiLson said:
Again, per his state law he was legal to discuss and sign NIL in California. He has the same rights regardless of age or playing experience.
Click to expand...
I'm aware. It's just apples and oranges.

Carson Beck should be, by top tier college QB market value, a multimillionaire by now via NIL. It's not a stretch at all.

An unsigned HS prospect flying across country in a private plane and having an unofficial visit isn't something you'd really expect.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top