Started By
Message
Could this be the answer to the NIL/portal mess we have now, and would it work?
Posted on 5/4/24 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 5/4/24 at 12:38 pm
The article linked below is from Outkick. The crux of it is this quote from Ross Dellinger:
Bowl Season director Nick Carparelli told @YahooSports in Phoenix that he expects NIL to soon come “in-house” and for athletes to sign binding compensation contracts with schools that will require them to play in bowls and CFP games, eliminating or greatly reducing opt-outs.
If the schools were able to take over NIL from the collectives or whatever, they should be able to require the athletes to sign a contract that spells out the money they get and the responsibilities they have to abide by in order to get the money, just like any business transaction anywhere. It could potentially cut down on transfers (if you leave before your contract term, no money) as well as bowl opt outs. I've never bought in to the "meaningless bowl game" narrative - if my team is playing a football game then it's not meaningless to me - but if all the bowl teams were at full strength, all the games would be better.
I have no legal knowledge to inject here but maybe some of you Ranters do.
LINK
Bowl Season director Nick Carparelli told @YahooSports in Phoenix that he expects NIL to soon come “in-house” and for athletes to sign binding compensation contracts with schools that will require them to play in bowls and CFP games, eliminating or greatly reducing opt-outs.
If the schools were able to take over NIL from the collectives or whatever, they should be able to require the athletes to sign a contract that spells out the money they get and the responsibilities they have to abide by in order to get the money, just like any business transaction anywhere. It could potentially cut down on transfers (if you leave before your contract term, no money) as well as bowl opt outs. I've never bought in to the "meaningless bowl game" narrative - if my team is playing a football game then it's not meaningless to me - but if all the bowl teams were at full strength, all the games would be better.
I have no legal knowledge to inject here but maybe some of you Ranters do.
LINK
7
Posted on 5/4/24 at 12:59 pm to Tideroller
Unionization would follow immediately after.
Oh well...
Oh well...
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:09 pm to Murph4HOF
It won’t stop opt outs but maybe they don’t get paid for that game
They will make up an injury excuse to not play
They will make up an injury excuse to not play
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:29 pm to Tideroller
No, it's about like the draft in the military. If they don't want to be there, then you probably don't want them there either. Even without the draft, it sucks when you get stuck being around people who have little care for what they do.
They may show up for the game, but for the most part, the games are won and lost before they ever step foot on the field. It's won in the prep time, the film study, and so forth. You have to go execute it on game day, but if you haven't prepared, your chances of execution are limited.
If they aren't going to put in that effort to be their best in the game, you're better off with the 2nd string guy who will.
They may show up for the game, but for the most part, the games are won and lost before they ever step foot on the field. It's won in the prep time, the film study, and so forth. You have to go execute it on game day, but if you haven't prepared, your chances of execution are limited.
If they aren't going to put in that effort to be their best in the game, you're better off with the 2nd string guy who will.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:33 pm to Tideroller
That's not NIL, though. That's pay for play, and the athlete would become an employee or, at the very least, an independent contractor for the school. In my mind it's two different things.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:42 pm to Lucado
I get it but it really isn't NIL anymore anyway. The second string left guard isn't having his name, image, or likeness used anywhere. No one is buying his jersey, getting him to endorse something, or anything else - he's just getting a check. The actual NIL part of it doesn't seem to exist anymore unless you're someone like Bryce Young doing Dr. Pepper commercials. It's straight up pay for play, and some of them don't even play.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:45 pm to Tideroller
The way I look at it is, if a player takes nil and signs a letter of intent then he signed a contract, he should have to play for that school the three to fours years
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:47 pm to Tideroller
quote:
I get it but it really isn't NIL anymore anyway. The second string left guard isn't having his name, image, or likeness used anywhere. No one is buying his jersey, getting him to endorse something, or anything else - he's just getting a check. The actual NIL part of it doesn't seem to exist anymore unless you're someone like Bryce Young doing Dr. Pepper commercials. It's straight up pay for play, and some of them don't even play.
Yes and no. The players are still doing commercials, even if most of them are at the local level, autograph signings and things like that. As a practical matter it is pay for play, but in a legal sense there's a distinction. If schools start to pay players as employees or independent contractors to play for them, they could still have separate NIL deals with private companies, just like NFL players do. I don't think it would reign anything in. It's too far gone at this point.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:54 pm to Tideroller
Could it limit transfers perhaps but with the FTC just doing away w non competes I’m not sure how you could legally bind a player to stay more than one semester.
Will it solve the money? Of course not bc there can be no limit on how much a player makes through NIL.
The only fix for bowl games will be for the bowls to compensate players including offering a winner’s purse.
Will it solve the money? Of course not bc there can be no limit on how much a player makes through NIL.
The only fix for bowl games will be for the bowls to compensate players including offering a winner’s purse.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 1:54 pm to Tideroller
Bluebloods are desperate because they are losing power.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 2:12 pm to Emmanuel Goldstein
Signing with a school and collective should be a 2 year commitment. Ineligible to transfer after one year unless you sit out a season once the contract is signed barring a head coach change or some serious family emergency. And if you do want to break the contract before the term is up, you owe whatever has been paid to that point with interest accruing after a certain amount of time. It might keep these kids more committed and the donors a little more structured with how they’re paying players.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 2:18 pm to jdaute2
That would be excellent.
Nah, blue bloods have plenty of NIL money. It's a matter of those getting paid having some responsibilities for getting the money, like having to actually play in all the games.
quote:
Bluebloods are desperate because they are losing power.
Nah, blue bloods have plenty of NIL money. It's a matter of those getting paid having some responsibilities for getting the money, like having to actually play in all the games.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 2:23 pm to jdaute2
Nope no waivers. That’s been the biggest issue in the courts. If you’re going to have a rule, it’s gotta be iron clad. Coaching change you probably get away with since that’s a concrete event, “family emergency “ has too much ambiguity.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 2:29 pm to Lucado
quote:
That's pay for play, and the athlete would become an employee or, at the very least, an independent contractor for the school
Yes, it would be pay for play. And that has been going on forever. A kid is required to play football to earn/retain something of value (his football scholarship). The only thing preventing it being cash instead of a scholarship is the NCAA itself.
As for being an independent contractor, that is what NIL is now. A kid enters an agreement to be paid for NIL with anyone willing to pay them. He is then, by law, required to be taxed on those earnings, assume they meet a minimum threshold. The school just becomes the "anyone willing to pay" at that point.
The real issue is, the courts have said (rather loosely but its there) that while the school can not prevent the kid from also getting paid for his NIL thru anyone else willing to do so.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 2:33 pm to Tideroller
Universities shouldn’t employ students directly. They can be better served diverting funds to the collective.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News