forums

Jordan Addison to the portal

Tad Footeball said:
Carlo Veltri looks like an assistant general manager of a Buca di Beppo in suburban Pittsburgh whose highlight of his life is the time he got to comp a meal for Dan Marino's sister. Or at least she said she was.

View attachment 184530
Click to expand...

Exactly what you would picture a clout chaser to look like, soul patch and all
 
Advertisement
Now you all understand what has been going on for a long time. Now the numbers are just public and the moves reported and schools that were hesitant to play with enough money to get you caught (all teams paid, just at varying degrees depending on their hesitancy or ability)...some of those schools that were hesitant are now willing to REALLY play the game (see Miami and USC).

Good for Jordan Addison. I just hope he did good business on the way out.
 
Genghis Cane said:
People overestimated UNC because of young talent that never ended up producing.

Pitt is getting a lot of buzz because they are returning the vast majority of a roster that went 11-3 last year. And they would have went 12-2 if Pickett played in the bowl game.

If Slovis ends up being an above-average quarterback, they’ll be really good this year. And if Addison ends up staying, they will win 10+ games again.
Click to expand...
They looked terrible without Pickett. They may be returning a lot of players, but they lost, by far, their biggest difference maker. They are going to be nowhere near as good this year, as they were last year.
 
Colombie said:
Yes, respect is one thing but saying they will be successful because they have an easy schedule is meaningless to me. Every single year Coastal teams find ways to shoot themselves in the foot with a bunch of unexpected losses no matter how easy their schedule looks on paper.
Click to expand...
Thats because they all suck. Their schedule looks easy, but the teams with the easy schedule aren't good either. Pitt has any easy schedule, but they are Pitt. UVA has an easy schedule, but they still are UVA. ETC. what people are saying is if a good team had that schedule, it would be a lock. Miami is talented enough that we should be able to run the Coastal like Whisky did the B1G West for all those years.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Thats because they all suck. Their schedule looks easy, but the teams with the easy schedule aren't good either. Pitt has any easy schedule, but they are Pitt. UVA has an easy schedule, but they still are UVA. ETC. what people are saying is if a good team had that schedule, it would be a lock. Miami is talented enough that we should be able to run the Coastal like Whisky did the B1G West for all those years.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but people said the same thing last year and we had one dude get drafted in the 7th round. People, year in and year out, overestimate our talent. We will have better coaching this year, without a doubt, but we’re still not loaded. I expect a lot more scratch and claw type games next year.
 
Genghis Cane said:
I hear you, but people said the same thing last year and we had one dude get drafted in the 7th round. People, year in and year out, overestimate our talent. We will have better coaching this year, without a doubt, but we’re still not loaded. I expect a lot more scratch and claw type games next year.
Click to expand...
We still on average have more draft picks then any of the Coastal teams. The odds are that team last year will still end up with more players on NFL rosters, than any of the other teams we faced. Not to mention the fact that we beat Va tech who was tied for the most draft picks and if it wasn't for atrocious play calling we would have beaten UNC who was also tied. The only other team with more picks than us was Pitt, who we beat.

Even if we don't, that doesn't matter, since that is only elite kids, we still have a lot more talent overall than the rest of the coastal. Teams like Va Tech , Pitt, UNC, may have had more elite players graduating than us, but we had a lot more borderline NFL kids than them, and a lot more kids who are talented enought o be good college kids, but not able to make it to the next level.
 
Colombie said:
I don't believe the Pitt hype.

Everyone and their momma was saying similar things about UNC last year. Their schedule is weak blah, blah.
They found a way to lose a bunch of games and were over-hyped as a top 10 team by most preseason "experts".

Pitt is in the same Coastal hype ilk. They will probably find ways to lose games on their schedule that you think they should win.
Click to expand...
Western Michigan‘s gonna whip that *** just like last year. This year it’s at Western Michigan too.
 
Colombie said:
I think they can win the division but I just have a gut feeling they are just being over- hyped like most other teams from years past.

New QB and new Offensive Coordinator.

Last year they snuck up as champs with little expectations. This year they have the target on their backs due to high expectations and will be the hunted as they say.

I am penciling them in for 4 losses just because ACC Coastal Champs usually flame out like a long dumpster fire the very next year.
Click to expand...
Here are their losses in my opinion.
Western Michigan is a definite loss
Miami is a definite loss
Tennessee is a tossup but I would favor Tennessee.
And I think there’s one more in there maybe Louisville.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
The courts affirmed NIL. The NCAA can’t do a thing. It’s not what it was when you got that letter. Boosters can very easily skirt that now.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why I don’t like politics involved in sports. SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was in violation of “Antitrust” federal laws regarding NIL. Antitrust is defined as: Laws that are statutes developed by governments to protect ‘consumers’ from predatory business practices and ensure ‘fair competition.’ This is y companies like AT&T, Kodak, Standard Oil were in violation of antitrust b/c they monopolized the telecommunication, camera/film, & oil industries respectively, ensuring no other entities could compete for decades.

In all honesty, the issue I had w/ the NCAA was from what Ed O’s lawsuit stemmed from: him having his name, image, & likeness benefiting businesses, including EA Sports, UCLA’s student store, Reebok, the NCAA tourney advertisement, etc., & him not making a single dime. THAT makes perfect sense, & that’s the nature of NIL. The NCAA shouldn’t be able to regulate how much a player make in “these arenas.”

-If Budweiser wants to feature a prominent student or student-athlete for pay, that’s their prerogative.

-If an endorser want to create a fan jersey w/ a players jersey #/name, they should get a % of that sale from the school.

-If EA or 2K wants to create a game w/ a player’s likeness, they should be able to profit.

-If a student store wants to sell autographed memorabilia, again, they should get a cut.

**BUT, if a booster wants to shell out $8m for a player b/c they can? **** no. Where’s the “fair competition” in that?

Politics should stay w/in politics. The ruling should’ve been the NCAA can no longer hold students back from making $$ off their name, image, & likeness, but it needs to be in the spirit of name, image, & likeness, not a bidding war to get a player to come to ur school.

When a person like Desmond Howard, who’s been pro NIL throughout, comes out & say this system is flawed, it’s flawed. It is the Wild, Wild West. I saw a poster, I believe it was @AtlAtty who said NCAA should go pro model & treat every player like a FA. Well, even in the NFL there’s rules & regulations regarding FA. There’s tampering which is from all parties involved (trainers, coaches, equipment mgr, etc.), there’s a window for FA, & there’s this thing called a contract which is to be fulfilled, first, b4 a player enters FA.

So if the NCAA goes that model, that means by rights of the Universities, they should be able to offer “renewable” scholarships, meaning ur scholarship allocations are year to year vs. a 4 yr ride. U see in pro sports, there’s something called a contract, & that contract, although lucrative, has the team’s interest in mind. There’s language involved to protect the team. So if we get to that point, that’ll open up a whole new can of worms, which players would have to be unionized, which is almost impossible b/c there’s different governing laws for FBS & FCS. This is the slippery slope of this NIL that SCOTUS & Congress did not intend, b/c NO ONE thought this through, & now it’s buyers remorse.
 
Rellyrell said:
And this is exactly why I don’t like politics involved in sports. SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was in violation of “Antitrust” federal laws regarding NIL. Antitrust is defined as: Laws that are statutes developed by governments to protect ‘consumers’ from predatory business practices and ensure ‘fair competition.’ This is y companies like AT&T, Kodak, Standard Oil were in violation of antitrust b/c they monopolized the telecommunication, camera/film, & oil industries respectively, ensuring no other entities could compete for decades.

In all honesty, the issue I had w/ the NCAA was from what Ed O’s lawsuit stemmed from: him having his name, image, & likeness benefiting businesses, including EA Sports, UCLA’s student store, Reebok, the NCAA tourney advertisement, etc., & him not making a single dime. THAT makes perfect sense, & that’s the nature of NIL. The NCAA shouldn’t be able to regulate how much a player make in “these arenas.”

-If Budweiser wants to feature a prominent student or student-athlete for pay, that’s their prerogative.

-If an endorser want to create a fan jersey w/ a players jersey #/name, they should get a % of that sale from the school.

-If EA or 2K wants to create a game w/ a player’s likeness, they should be able to profit.

-If a student store wants to sell autographed memorabilia, again, they should get a cut.

**BUT, if a booster wants to shell out $8m for a player b/c they can? **** no. Where’s the “fair competition” in that?

Politics should stay w/in politics. The ruling should’ve been the NCAA can no longer hold students back from making $$ off their name, image, & likeness, but it needs to be in the spirit of name, image, & likeness, not a bidding war to get a player to come to ur school.

When a person like Desmond Howard, who’s been pro NIL throughout, comes out & say this system is flawed, it’s flawed. It is the Wild, Wild West. I saw a poster, I believe it was @AtlAtty who said NCAA should go pro model & treat every player like a FA. Well, even in the NFL there’s rules & regulations regarding FA. There’s tampering which is from all parties involved (trainers, coaches, equipment mgr, etc.), there’s a window for FA, & there’s this thing called a contract which is to be fulfilled, first, b4 a player enters FA.

So if the NCAA goes that model, that means by rights of the Universities, they should be able to offer “renewable” scholarships, meaning ur scholarship allocations are year to year vs. a 4 yr ride. U see in pro sports, there’s something called a contract, & that contract, although lucrative, has the team’s interest in mind. There’s language involved to protect the team. So if we get to that point, that’ll open up a whole new can of worms, which players would have to be unionized, which is almost impossible b/c there’s different governing laws for FBS & FCS. This is the slippery slope of this NIL that SCOTUS & Congress did not intend, b/c NO ONE thought this through, & now it’s buyers remorse.
Click to expand...
What’s the deal with these **** long *** posts lately? I’m trying to go to sleep and you drop this article?
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
And this is exactly why I don’t like politics involved in sports. SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was in violation of “Antitrust” federal laws regarding NIL. Antitrust is defined as: Laws that are statutes developed by governments to protect ‘consumers’ from predatory business practices and ensure ‘fair competition.’ This is y companies like AT&T, Kodak, Standard Oil were in violation of antitrust b/c they monopolized the telecommunication, camera/film, & oil industries respectively, ensuring no other entities could compete for decades.

In all honesty, the issue I had w/ the NCAA was from what Ed O’s lawsuit stemmed from: him having his name, image, & likeness benefiting businesses, including EA Sports, UCLA’s student store, Reebok, the NCAA tourney advertisement, etc., & him not making a single dime. THAT makes perfect sense, & that’s the nature of NIL. The NCAA shouldn’t be able to regulate how much a player make in “these arenas.”

-If Budweiser wants to feature a prominent student or student-athlete for pay, that’s their prerogative.

-If an endorser want to create a fan jersey w/ a players jersey #/name, they should get a % of that sale from the school.

-If EA or 2K wants to create a game w/ a player’s likeness, they should be able to profit.

-If a student store wants to sell autographed memorabilia, again, they should get a cut.

**BUT, if a booster wants to shell out $8m for a player b/c they can? **** no. Where’s the “fair competition” in that?

Politics should stay w/in politics. The ruling should’ve been the NCAA can no longer hold students back from making $$ off their name, image, & likeness, but it needs to be in the spirit of name, image, & likeness, not a bidding war to get a player to come to ur school.

When a person like Desmond Howard, who’s been pro NIL throughout, comes out & say this system is flawed, it’s flawed. It is the Wild, Wild West. I saw a poster, I believe it was @AtlAtty who said NCAA should go pro model & treat every player like a FA. Well, even in the NFL there’s rules & regulations regarding FA. There’s tampering which is from all parties involved (trainers, coaches, equipment mgr, etc.), there’s a window for FA, & there’s this thing called a contract which is to be fulfilled, first, b4 a player enters FA.

So if the NCAA goes that model, that means by rights of the Universities, they should be able to offer “renewable” scholarships, meaning ur scholarship allocations are year to year vs. a 4 yr ride. U see in pro sports, there’s something called a contract, & that contract, although lucrative, has the team’s interest in mind. There’s language involved to protect the team. So if we get to that point, that’ll open up a whole new can of worms, which players would have to be unionized, which is almost impossible b/c there’s different governing laws for FBS & FCS. This is the slippery slope of this NIL that SCOTUS & Congress did not intend, b/c NO ONE thought this through, & now it’s buyers remorse.
Click to expand...
Blame the NCAA. They should have got in front of this and let the players unionize so a set of rules could be established.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
And this is exactly why I don’t like politics involved in sports. SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was in violation of “Antitrust” federal laws regarding NIL. Antitrust is defined as: Laws that are statutes developed by governments to protect ‘consumers’ from predatory business practices and ensure ‘fair competition.’ This is y companies like AT&T, Kodak, Standard Oil were in violation of antitrust b/c they monopolized the telecommunication, camera/film, & oil industries respectively, ensuring no other entities could compete for decades.

In all honesty, the issue I had w/ the NCAA was from what Ed O’s lawsuit stemmed from: him having his name, image, & likeness benefiting businesses, including EA Sports, UCLA’s student store, Reebok, the NCAA tourney advertisement, etc., & him not making a single dime. THAT makes perfect sense, & that’s the nature of NIL. The NCAA shouldn’t be able to regulate how much a player make in “these arenas.”

-If Budweiser wants to feature a prominent student or student-athlete for pay, that’s their prerogative.

-If an endorser want to create a fan jersey w/ a players jersey #/name, they should get a % of that sale from the school.

-If EA or 2K wants to create a game w/ a player’s likeness, they should be able to profit.

-If a student store wants to sell autographed memorabilia, again, they should get a cut.

**BUT, if a booster wants to shell out $8m for a player b/c they can? **** no. Where’s the “fair competition” in that?

Politics should stay w/in politics. The ruling should’ve been the NCAA can no longer hold students back from making $$ off their name, image, & likeness, but it needs to be in the spirit of name, image, & likeness, not a bidding war to get a player to come to ur school.

When a person like Desmond Howard, who’s been pro NIL throughout, comes out & say this system is flawed, it’s flawed. It is the Wild, Wild West. I saw a poster, I believe it was @AtlAtty who said NCAA should go pro model & treat every player like a FA. Well, even in the NFL there’s rules & regulations regarding FA. There’s tampering which is from all parties involved (trainers, coaches, equipment mgr, etc.), there’s a window for FA, & there’s this thing called a contract which is to be fulfilled, first, b4 a player enters FA.

So if the NCAA goes that model, that means by rights of the Universities, they should be able to offer “renewable” scholarships, meaning ur scholarship allocations are year to year vs. a 4 yr ride. U see in pro sports, there’s something called a contract, & that contract, although lucrative, has the team’s interest in mind. There’s language involved to protect the team. So if we get to that point, that’ll open up a whole new can of worms, which players would have to be unionized, which is almost impossible b/c there’s different governing laws for FBS & FCS. This is the slippery slope of this NIL that SCOTUS & Congress did not intend, b/c NO ONE thought this through, & now it’s buyers remorse.
Click to expand...
It’s got flaws in that only those with the means will benefit. I’m not sure what you do to stop that though given that these kids have a right to earn a living off their NIL and there are many ways for the wealthy to accommodate that.
 
Rellyrell said:
And this is exactly why I don’t like politics involved in sports. SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was in violation of “Antitrust” federal laws regarding NIL. Antitrust is defined as: Laws that are statutes developed by governments to protect ‘consumers’ from predatory business practices and ensure ‘fair competition.’ This is y companies like AT&T, Kodak, Standard Oil were in violation of antitrust b/c they monopolized the telecommunication, camera/film, & oil industries respectively, ensuring no other entities could compete for decades.

In all honesty, the issue I had w/ the NCAA was from what Ed O’s lawsuit stemmed from: him having his name, image, & likeness benefiting businesses, including EA Sports, UCLA’s student store, Reebok, the NCAA tourney advertisement, etc., & him not making a single dime. THAT makes perfect sense, & that’s the nature of NIL. The NCAA shouldn’t be able to regulate how much a player make in “these arenas.”

-If Budweiser wants to feature a prominent student or student-athlete for pay, that’s their prerogative.

-If an endorser want to create a fan jersey w/ a players jersey #/name, they should get a % of that sale from the school.

-If EA or 2K wants to create a game w/ a player’s likeness, they should be able to profit.

-If a student store wants to sell autographed memorabilia, again, they should get a cut.

**BUT, if a booster wants to shell out $8m for a player b/c they can? **** no. Where’s the “fair competition” in that?

Politics should stay w/in politics. The ruling should’ve been the NCAA can no longer hold students back from making $$ off their name, image, & likeness, but it needs to be in the spirit of name, image, & likeness, not a bidding war to get a player to come to ur school.

When a person like Desmond Howard, who’s been pro NIL throughout, comes out & say this system is flawed, it’s flawed. It is the Wild, Wild West. I saw a poster, I believe it was @AtlAtty who said NCAA should go pro model & treat every player like a FA. Well, even in the NFL there’s rules & regulations regarding FA. There’s tampering which is from all parties involved (trainers, coaches, equipment mgr, etc.), there’s a window for FA, & there’s this thing called a contract which is to be fulfilled, first, b4 a player enters FA.

So if the NCAA goes that model, that means by rights of the Universities, they should be able to offer “renewable” scholarships, meaning ur scholarship allocations are year to year vs. a 4 yr ride. U see in pro sports, there’s something called a contract, & that contract, although lucrative, has the team’s interest in mind. There’s language involved to protect the team. So if we get to that point, that’ll open up a whole new can of worms, which players would have to be unionized, which is almost impossible b/c there’s different governing laws for FBS & FCS. This is the slippery slope of this NIL that SCOTUS & Congress did not intend, b/c NO ONE thought this through, & now it’s buyers remorse.
Click to expand...
I don’t know know all the details about NILso forgive for my ignorance.

Since NIL has become the Wild West and Congress not knowing what to do. Can’t Congress shift the power back to NCAA? Basically telling them “You can’t stop NIL but we are making it your job to control it”
 
Rellyrell said:
And this is exactly why I don’t like politics involved in sports. SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was in violation of “Antitrust” federal laws regarding NIL. Antitrust is defined as: Laws that are statutes developed by governments to protect ‘consumers’ from predatory business practices and ensure ‘fair competition.’ This is y companies like AT&T, Kodak, Standard Oil were in violation of antitrust b/c they monopolized the telecommunication, camera/film, & oil industries respectively, ensuring no other entities could compete for decades.

In all honesty, the issue I had w/ the NCAA was from what Ed O’s lawsuit stemmed from: him having his name, image, & likeness benefiting businesses, including EA Sports, UCLA’s student store, Reebok, the NCAA tourney advertisement, etc., & him not making a single dime. THAT makes perfect sense, & that’s the nature of NIL. The NCAA shouldn’t be able to regulate how much a player make in “these arenas.”

-If Budweiser wants to feature a prominent student or student-athlete for pay, that’s their prerogative.

-If an endorser want to create a fan jersey w/ a players jersey #/name, they should get a % of that sale from the school.

-If EA or 2K wants to create a game w/ a player’s likeness, they should be able to profit.

-If a student store wants to sell autographed memorabilia, again, they should get a cut.

**BUT, if a booster wants to shell out $8m for a player b/c they can? **** no. Where’s the “fair competition” in that?

Politics should stay w/in politics. The ruling should’ve been the NCAA can no longer hold students back from making $$ off their name, image, & likeness, but it needs to be in the spirit of name, image, & likeness, not a bidding war to get a player to come to ur school.

When a person like Desmond Howard, who’s been pro NIL throughout, comes out & say this system is flawed, it’s flawed. It is the Wild, Wild West. I saw a poster, I believe it was @AtlAtty who said NCAA should go pro model & treat every player like a FA. Well, even in the NFL there’s rules & regulations regarding FA. There’s tampering which is from all parties involved (trainers, coaches, equipment mgr, etc.), there’s a window for FA, & there’s this thing called a contract which is to be fulfilled, first, b4 a player enters FA.

So if the NCAA goes that model, that means by rights of the Universities, they should be able to offer “renewable” scholarships, meaning ur scholarship allocations are year to year vs. a 4 yr ride. U see in pro sports, there’s something called a contract, & that contract, although lucrative, has the team’s interest in mind. There’s language involved to protect the team. So if we get to that point, that’ll open up a whole new can of worms, which players would have to be unionized, which is almost impossible b/c there’s different governing laws for FBS & FCS. This is the slippery slope of this NIL that SCOTUS & Congress did not intend, b/c NO ONE thought this through, & now it’s buyers remorse.
Click to expand...
These are all valid points. It’s also why I keep saying Ruiz seems to be the only one actually focusing on the marketing and ROI, which makes it ironic that he is the one getting **** from the media.

Here is where things get real dicey. Universities are 501c3s or 115 dual government-Public charities. The universities themselves have it for education. But then you have a bunch of athletic associations, collectives, booster networks, and the conferences themselves. They typically have tax exemption for the promotion of amateur athletics. How does this world of NILs reconcile with that? That is millions upon millions of dollars a year that could suddenly be on the table. Does a tax court rule income from athletics is now unrelated business income to universities and taxable? If it is too much does it put the universities’s tax exemption at risk? These entities will fight this tooth and nail and I’m not sure anyone knows where this leads on a macro level.

Another thought is those games, jerseys, etc., at least in the pro world, are typically through collective bargaining with the players unions. God only knows where that heads.

My thoughts are:

1) these NIL deals are crazy at first and then pull back when boosters blow their first loads and don’t see a return on this. How long will Tennessee boosters keep paying for guys like Nico if they don’t win. A looming recession will test their resolve some too.
2) Some forms of unions are probably on the horizon. Especially once the video games come back. How are they going to negotiate that otherwise? It will/should help ensure more players get something.
3) I’d love to see something requiring an establishment of FMV. Yea this can be easy to fudge like a home appraisal, but 501c3s have to do this for executive comp. The NCAA is absolutely toothless from the SC decision, so who knows who would be the arbiter of fair market value or not.
4) All it would take is the wrong person at the IRS to push this and things will get real interesting.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top