Dark side of Nil

[GojiraCane]

I liked it much better with just the bag man. Everyone knew it was going on, and everyone accepted it. This portal nonsense and NIL is terrible. I know the kids deserve something, and I'm a fan of capitalism, but the current state of college football ain't it

We couldn’t compete at all in the bag era. Because we were the number one target of the NCAA…any attempt at serious bags would be met with an investigation and severe, sanctions. Miami is a well known college, but not a blue blood. We would be the perfect program for the NCAA to sacrifice so that they can then say, “We enforce our rules! We gave Miami the death penalty!” Meanwhile it’s just cover for their turning a blind eye to the programs that they favor.

The NIL era will likely ultimately produce its own small set of dominant program perhaps (although the constant player transfers will make year to year stability chaotic). But the bag era was boring. I think it was Herbstreit who said a few years ago that it was bad for the sport that as the 4 team playoffs were approaching that it was clear that the same four teams would be in the playoffs next year. Rinse and repeat that long enough and interest in the sport, interest on individual campuses drop off. And eventually so would the content rights.

 

[ZeroBeachCane3]

 

[AtlAtty]

Make it so that a student cannot transfer until year four. Whatever school they sign with, they are locked in at for three years.

Unfortunately this is correct @SCarolina Ibis. The NCAA has already been challenged on the one-free transfer rule and lost in court because the NCAA could not present a reasonable argument for why the first transfer should be without consequence of sitting out a year but the second transfer would have that consequence.

When courts get involved they demand a rational basis for rules and the “because that’s how we want to do it” or “because that is best for our game” doesn’t hold water with court. Courts look at tihs issue like limiting a person’s rights. And there needs to be an overriding interest if a right is being limited.

For example, a person’s right to free speech is limited by a law that says a perosn can’t yell “Fire” in a theater. Courts have upheld that law because there is a rational basis for the law; we don’t want stampedes in theaters or other crowded places. So rights can be limited but there needs to be a rational basis for doing so. The NCAA has yet to present a rational basis for limiting NIL, or transfers, or pretty much anything else.

 

[GojiraCane]

Unfortunately this is correct @SCarolina Ibis. The NCAA has already been challenged on the one-free transfer rule and lost in court because the NCAA could not present a reasonable argument for why the first transfer should be without consequence of sitting out a year but the second transfer would have that consequence.

When courts get involved they demand a rational basis for rules and the “because that’s how we want to do it” or “because that is best for our game” doesn’t hold water with court. Courts look at tihs issue like limiting a person’s rights. And there needs to be an overriding interest if a right is being limited.

For example, a person’s right to free speech is limited by a law that says a perosn can’t yell “Fire” in a theater. Courts have upheld that law because there is a rational basis for the law; we don’t want stampedes in theaters or other crowded places. So rights can be limited but there needs to be a rational basis for doing so. The NCAA has yet to present a rational basis for limiting NIL, or transfers, or pretty much anything else.

Under this argument, a player will one day challenge and win, eliminating the four years of on field eligibility. We’ll have people with ten to twelve year college careers who skip the NFL entirely

 

[WesternMDCane]

There will be no closing of Pandoras box once it has been opened.

“Once it has been opened” bud that box has been opened, seeing all the flips right before signing day pre NIL, that’s where the under table money came into play

 

[TwentySix]

Under this argument, a player will one day challenge and win, eliminating the four years of on field eligibility. We’ll have people with ten to twelve year college careers who skip the NFL entirely

Let’s get lawyers working on this right now and throw enough money at Cam to stay.

 

[AtlAtty]

Under this argument, a player will one day challenge and win, eliminating the four years of on field eligibility. We’ll have people with ten to twelve year college careers who skip the NFL entirely

Its possible.

 

[hesskilla]

I don’t think he’s necessarily talking about the money people are willing to pay, but the deals they’re making with shady handlers and agents that’s the problem.

Sure, but 200k minus 40k is still 160k. That’s 160 thousand more than they had before. What’s wrong with taking 160k over zero. The agent compensation will take care of itself. It’s competitive and their commission will come down.