forums

Jack Nickel

Advertisement
Tony4Canes said:
How?? Has the House Case settled?? If so, must have missed that and maybe everyone signing now doing something directly with schools since revenue sharing starts then too??
Click to expand...


Let's not go through this again.

The lawsuit settlement involves compensation.

The 105 scholarship limit is an NCAA roster-size and scholarship rule.

They are not directly related. The NCAA has already legislated the roster size rule. The FINANCIAL amounts and details of the montary settlement are still being worked on.

It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
 
Hardly played at UAB. 117 snaps as a RS Soph, strictly a run blocker like most have said, and just decent given the comp.

Big step up in comp now, only played 1 snap against Arkansas. But with 105 on the roster, it’s better than a walk-on.

Posted mediocre to poor run blocking grades against Tulane (49.8), Navy (55.9), USF (60.9).

Good grade against Army (73.3) but only 6 run blocking snaps, and Memphis (63.7). He never recorded double digit run blocking attempts in a game after Week 2.

Good frame though at 6’4’’ 260.
 
Alex Del Piero said:
Does anyone on our roster have a brother who is a capable Division 1 quarterback? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...

funny videos fail GIF
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Let's not go through this again.

The lawsuit settlement involves compensation.

The 105 scholarship limit is an NCAA roster-size and scholarship rule.

They are not directly related.
Click to expand...


All part from same case or a different case?? Seems directly related to me. If House wouldn't have brought his lawsuit, doubt roster limits would have changed.

🤷‍♂️
 
WeBallinBoyz said:
Hardly played at UAB. 117 snaps as a RS Soph, strictly a run blocker like most have said.

Big step up in comp, only played 1 snap against Arkansas. But with 105 on the roster, it’s better than a walk-on.
Click to expand...
He started off at Michigan st so shouldn’t be that big of adjustment. His role is likely strictly going to be blocking when needed
 
252cane said:
Both. Everybody can’t be stars. Somebody got to do the dirty work
Click to expand...
Exactly. Maybe he is a special teams player. Scout team needs decent players. He might not be great, but he did start at MSU and he hasn't just ridden the bench. More D1 snaps than Carver.
 
Advertisement
252cane said:
He started off at Michigan st so shouldn’t be that big of adjustment. His role is likely strictly going to be blocking when needed
Click to expand...
That’s fine, just don’t expect him to have an impact. He had 50 total run blocking snaps after Week 2 (Alcorn State and ULM). So if he can only get on the field minimally at UAB, chances are he’s a scout team guy or garbage time player here.

Which like some have said, is fine for the 105 scholly limit now. Better than a walk on.
 
Tony4Canes said:
How?? Has the House Case settled?? If so, must have missed that and maybe everyone signing now doing something directly with schools since revenue sharing starts then too??
Click to expand...


Look, you are really bad at this. Like REALLY BAD.

First example. When NIL came into being, lots of people MISTAKENLY claimed that it was the direct result of a lawsuit. It was not.

The lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court involved academic achievement awards. NOT NIL.

Yet, after the lawsuit, the NCAA was AFRAID it would lose future litigation, thus it chose to change its rules on NIL, not because it was compelled to do so.

The "House settlement" is something that the individual universities have to sign off on. There are wide-ranging elements that are changing, including the NCAA re-examining its scholarship limitations and the use of "equivalency" scholarships in non-headcount scholarship sports.

INDEPENDENT of the "House settlement" from an administrative standpoint, the NCAA has ALREADY updated its scholarship limit rules. This rule-change is NOT dependent upon the signing off of the financial elements of the "House settlement". The roster limits have already been changed. If, say, Texas or Alabama objected to the "House settlement", the roster limit changes would already be effective under NCAA rules.

Come on, man, you need to learn how to read these things.
 
Advertisement
WeBallinBoyz said:
That’s fine, just don’t expect him to have an impact. He had 50 total run blocking snaps after Week 2 (Alcorn State and ULM). So if he can only get on the field minimally at UAB, chances are he’s a scout team guy or garbage time player here.

Which like some have said, is fine for the 105 scholly limit now. Better than a walk on.
Click to expand...
can you pull Riley Williams block grades?. and Cam Mccormick?. He would likely be Mccormicks fill in
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, you are really bad at this. Like REALLY BAD.

First example. When NIL came into being, lots of people MISTAKENLY claimed that it was the direct result of a lawsuit. It was not.

The lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court involved academic achievement awards. NOT NIL.

Yet, after the lawsuit, the NCAA was AFRAID it would lose future litigation, thus it chose to change its rules on NIL, not because it was compelled to do so.

The "House settlement" is something that the individual universities have to sign off on. There are wide-ranging elements that are changing, including the NCAA re-examining its scholarship limitations and the use of "equivalency" scholarships in non-headcount scholarship sports.

INDEPENDENT of the "House settlement" from an administrative standpoint, the NCAA has ALREADY updated its scholarship limit rules. This rule-change is NOT dependent upon the signing off of the financial elements of the "House settlement". The roster limits have already been changed. If, say, Texas or Alabama objected to the "House settlement", the roster limit changes would already be effective under NCAA rules.

Come on, man, you need to learn how to read these things.
Click to expand...

Then why would SEC does this? I may be bad at this but I am going off articles written on the case

www.cbssports.com

SEC maintains 85-scholarship limit for 2025 season ahead of transformative House v. NCAA settlement

The SEC has provided some guidelines for 2025 rosters as college football programs await the final terms of the historic court settlement
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 
Advertisement
gogeta4 said:
can you pull Riley Williams block grades?. and Cam Mccormick?. He would likely be Mccormicks fill in
Click to expand...
Sure thing.

Here’s Riley (who wasn’t very good to be honest, better at pass blocking).

IMG_7796.jpeg



Then here’s Cam, also better at pass protection than run blocking.

IMG_7797.jpeg


So yes I “get” the take from a schematics standpoint, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a good player and we should expect him to be a good run blocker here.

Good scout team player/garbage time guy. Exactly what 105 was intended for.
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, you are really bad at this. Like REALLY BAD.

First example. When NIL came into being, lots of people MISTAKENLY claimed that it was the direct result of a lawsuit. It was not.

The lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court involved academic achievement awards. NOT NIL.

Yet, after the lawsuit, the NCAA was AFRAID it would lose future litigation, thus it chose to change its rules on NIL, not because it was compelled to do so.

The "House settlement" is something that the individual universities have to sign off on. There are wide-ranging elements that are changing, including the NCAA re-examining its scholarship limitations and the use of "equivalency" scholarships in non-headcount scholarship sports.

INDEPENDENT of the "House settlement" from an administrative standpoint, the NCAA has ALREADY updated its scholarship limit rules. This rule-change is NOT dependent upon the signing off of the financial elements of the "House settlement". The roster limits have already been changed. If, say, Texas or Alabama objected to the "House settlement", the roster limit changes would already be effective under NCAA rules.

Come on, man, you need to learn how to read these things.
Click to expand...

And release from NCAA

 
Tony4Canes said:
All part from same case or a different case?? Seems directly related to me. If House wouldn't have brought his lawsuit, doubt roster limits would have changed.

🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...


They are not directly related from an administrative standpoint.

Meaning. The NCAA can pass its own legislation on roster size and scholarship limits. This administrative action is independent of the settlement of a lawsuit. It is not dependent on the member institutions agreeing to the lawsuit settlement. It was already approved as a rule change.

One can argue that the changes in roster size and scholarship originate in the lawsuit, from a motivational standpoint. Which is to say, if the lawsuit never happens, maybe the NCAA never changes the roster size and scholarship limits.

But then, if the lawsuit does inspire or require such changes, the NCAA can make those changes on their own, without it being the subject of "approval" of the settlement by all the member institutions.

So not directly related. Indirectly related. Not a direct requirement, administratively.

At the end of the day, the NCAA and member institutions will be shaing a lot more money. Some will be scholarship money, some will be revenue sharing money.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top