Started By
Message
re: Can an opposing NIL collective ink a deal with a player to just not play?
Posted on 2/25/24 at 1:09 pm to Hateradedrink
Posted on 2/25/24 at 1:09 pm to Hateradedrink
An epiphany can strike anytime...sometimes booze or drug induced.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 2:36 pm to Hateradedrink
That's a serious question...... so you are clearly on the wrong forum.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 5:50 am to Hateradedrink
I don’t know if they could pay him not to play but couldn’t they just hire him as an highly paid employee so he retires from football? Which would be the same thing.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 6:29 am to Summer of Jimbo
quote:
couldn’t they just hire him as an highly paid employee so he retires from football? Which would be the same thing.
That wouldn’t help him perpetuate future income.
How about they just ask the player to come sign autographs at the company BBQ, with the event occurring at the same time as the game?
Posted on 2/27/24 at 6:46 am to Hateradedrink
Until there are legal contracts subject to some governing body, as long as there is escalating money involved, anything can happen.
Bryant "allegedly" used to sign players to keep them off other rosters before limits were imposed. With a toothless NCAA, money talks.
Bryant "allegedly" used to sign players to keep them off other rosters before limits were imposed. With a toothless NCAA, money talks.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:37 am to IvIerlot
quote:
This practice will escalate greatly when they put a cap on what university can spend.
Not sure how they could cap what a university can spend.
NIL deals are between a player and a third party company. The courts have spoken in that they don't believe the NCAA or any organization can limit these contracts. A cap by definition is a limitation and not one on the schools but rather on those 3rd party NIL deals. There's no way a cap would stand.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 9:04 am to Hateradedrink
I say no. These deals are not performance-based.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 9:05 am to DawginSC
quote:
Not sure how they could cap what a university can spend.
They can't, but they can reduce the incentives to NIL as pay-for-play by doing things like instituting a draft and paying players salaries.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:15 am to jonnyanony
quote:
They can't, but they can reduce the incentives to NIL as pay-for-play by doing things like instituting a draft and paying players salaries.
Lol. A draft.
There's no way that flies. Can you imagine Congress or the courts being okay with the NCAA telling a player from Florida he has to attend school at Boise State in Idaho if he wants to get an athletic scholarship because they hold his draft rights?
There's no chance at all of that happening.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:19 am to Hateradedrink
Ole Miss was doing something similar to this under Freeze. We paid a lot of recruits to not take visits or sign with certain schools. That’s supposedly what pissed off some bigger programs and lead to them crying to the NCAA
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 10:59 am
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:40 am to Hateradedrink
Yes. Ole Miss signed Spencer Sanders to ride the bench instead of play at Auburn.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:46 am to DawginSC
quote:
the NCAA telling a player from Florida he has to attend school at Boise State in Idaho if he wants to get an athletic scholarship because they hold his draft rights?
That's not how it would work.
You either opt into a draft or you go where you want, but sit a year. The NCAA or any member institution is well within their right to do that.
For some players, that's a good tradeoff. For others, not so much.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:48 am to Henry Jones Jr
Yeah, and now this is basically legal.
Considering the courts essentially said the NCAA enforcing rules violates anti trust, I don’t know how the thing the NCAA was trying to stop would also violate antitrust.
Trying to gain an edge competitively is, by definition, anticompetitive. And every program is always trying to gain an edge.
Considering the courts essentially said the NCAA enforcing rules violates anti trust, I don’t know how the thing the NCAA was trying to stop would also violate antitrust.
Trying to gain an edge competitively is, by definition, anticompetitive. And every program is always trying to gain an edge.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:48 am to IvIerlot
quote:
I say yes. But what is more likely is that Blue Bloods will just buy smaller schools and keep players on those rosters to call up if needed, and to your point, play keep away.
Farm teams for farm teams.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 11:20 am to BQAG02
Back to the OP, I don't see why you'd arrange a NIL deal for a player not to play when you could give them a NIL deal to be a walk-on for your team.
When Daniel Jackson was a walk-on for UGA (he's a scholarship player now), he had a NIL deal that paid for his tuition, room and board and left him with about 10 grand a year extra. He effectively had a NIL scholarship despite officially being a walk-on.
When Daniel Jackson was a walk-on for UGA (he's a scholarship player now), he had a NIL deal that paid for his tuition, room and board and left him with about 10 grand a year extra. He effectively had a NIL scholarship despite officially being a walk-on.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 11:25 am to jonnyanony
quote:
You either opt into a draft or you go where you want, but sit a year. The NCAA or any member institution is well within their right to do that.
No they aren't. THe courts aren't going to accept that level of regulation on players ability to earn money.
All of the court decisions are about not letting a governing body infringe on the rights of the players. You're crazy if you think there's any way any kind of system that limits players is going to be allowed by the courts.
Most of the members of the NCAA are public universities. They don't have the same ability to set rules that the NFL does as a private organizaiton of private companies.
You need to let this idea go, along with any idea that restrictions on players/students will be possible. It is not going to be allowed by our courts.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 11:31 am to Hateradedrink
I’d chip in to fund the top player at each of the five positions in men’s college basketball to agree to transfer, and play one year, at the same school - say Slippery Rock or Sewanee - as long as they agree to play for the women’s team.
Let’s just get this silly schitt decided, once and for all.
Let’s just get this silly schitt decided, once and for all.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:06 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Not sure how they could cap what a university can spend.
Ask the dumb dumbs that figured out how to cap NFL teams.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:22 pm to IvIerlot
quote:
Ask the dumb dumbs that figured out how to cap NFL teams.
The money in CFB isn't coming from the Universities. It's coming from collectives operating on behalf of the universities.
What we've learned from the court cases is that while the NCAA might be able to make rules on what their members can do, they can't make rules on contracts between a player and a third party.
The NFL doesn't legislate what Nike or Gatorade can spend on advertising for a NFL player. That's the comparison that is working with college football.
Even in the days of Mcdonalds bags full of cash, it almost never came from the school. It came from others working on behalf of the school. And the courts have been VERY clear on putting no regulations on their behavior.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:23 pm to DawginSC
quote:
No they aren't. THe courts aren't going to accept that level of regulation on players ability to earn money.
There's no regulation on the players ability to earn money. They can accept as much NIL as they want.
quote:
What we've learned from the court cases is that while the NCAA might be able to make rules on what their members can do, they can't make rules on contracts between a player and a third party.
Exactly. Players are now free to accept whatever they want. They'll also get a salary. But nobody can compel a team to play any given player.
This is the only sound option.
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 2:25 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News