Nick Saban, a known cheater like his friend Bill Belichick, wants to limit player compensation

[Dre]

The majority of the arguments I’m seeing against the current system is that it makes y’all uncomfortable to see the players making this much uncapped. Why?

Who is this cap for that y’all want instituted?

It exists in the NFL and NBA to protect billionaires from themselves. Why do yall care about how billionaires use their money and how it filters to men between the age 17 and however old Cam McCormick is?

 

[Rellyrell]

I don't think that's entirely true. My understanding of scholarships (which may be a little outdated, but the knowledge I have is first hand), is that they are a one year renewable scholarship for up to five years. The school has the right to not reup for almost any reason. Again, this may have changed over the last 15 years, but this is exactly how it was when a family member received a scholarship to play football.

U are correct; it’s rare, but “technically” a scholarship can be non renewed if there’s a new coach, if the school deems that all requirements have not been met, etc. (Just texted my lil homie who’s a true frosh for The Huskies).

 

[mcnaire2004]

It takes a lot longer to catch up to an Alabama under the old rules.

I guess Saban paid the loser players he inherited to play better to win 12 games his second year?

It's a shame what happened to Urban and the rest of the purity SEC. Finally there's a way they can compete financially with bama.

 

[mcnaire2004]

I don't think that's entirely true. My understanding of scholarships (which may be a little outdated, but the knowledge I have is first hand), is that they are a one year renewable scholarship for up to five years. The school has the right to not reup for almost any reason. Again, this may have changed over the last 15 years, but this is exactly how it was when a family member received a scholarship to play football.

I was under the impression they changed the rules so that a player can still have a scholarship to an institution if he's "cut" from the team.

 

[DMoney]

U do realize that judge was from California, correct? Not sure if that’s the best example when we literally have judges dismissing DUI fatalities b/c the person was sorry, just to do the **** all over again 2 yrs later.

We're on drunk driving verdicts in California now?

Let's get back to reality. The Supreme Court smacked the NCAA, 9-0. Conservative, liberal, all over the map. They did so because the NCAA is an illegal cartel. The reason the NCAA can't enforce their own NIL rules is because they got hit with an injunction in Tennessee.

That's why Nick Saban is asking Congress to give the NCAA a safe harbor from the rules. When the courts apply the law, the NCAA loses.

There is no "intent of NIL." And if there was, every court that looks at the issue must be misinterpreting it.

 

[colperm]

If NIL is so limited, why can't the NCAA win in court? Everybody- including the judge who just rejected the House settlement - knows that we are currently in the midst of pay for play.

So again, who's "intent" are we talking about here?

I could be off but I believe the spirit or "intent" of Name, Image and Likeness was generally interpreted as:

Name = Jersey sales, Autographs
Image = Endorsements, Sponsorships, Commercials
Likeness = Video Games

That form of NIL benefits mostly the top players in the major college sports, as that is where the commercial interest/market lies. As we all know, there is a market for the non-stars who contribute to major college sports but it was boosters who would pay those kids.

Thus, NIL has (largely) become a replacement for a cash based pay for play system that was already in place. So it sort of misses the point, or "intent" of what we all considered NIL to be before this all went down--it just brings an underground market into the world of visible (taxable) transactions. And with that, there are a whole other bunch of issues that have been slowly working themselves out.

Personally, I say leave the regulators out of it because they're all crooks themselves and "fairness" is hardly ever the goal of those people in my eyes. They are motivated by self-interest and self-preservation just like the rest of us.

 

[DMoney]

I could be off but I believe the spirit or "intent" of Name, Image and Likeness was generally interpreted as:

Name = Jersey sales, Autographs
Image = Endorsements, Sponsorships, Commercials
Likeness = Video Games

That form of NIL benefits mostly the top players in the major college sports, as that is where the commercial interest/market lies. As we all know, there is a market for the non-stars who contribute to major college sports but it was boosters who would pay those kids.

Thus, NIL has (largely) become a replacement for a pay for play system that was already in place. So it sort of misses the point, or "intent" of what we all considered NIL to be before this all went down.

I understand that interepretation. But who laid down this intent? And why do courts keep misinterpreting it?

To be clear, Canes Connection athletes have deliverables related to marketing. It's a contractual obligation and legit. But the NCAA can't even enforce those limitations because they've been hit with an injunction in Tennessee.

 

[colperm]

Who laid down this intent? And why do courts keep misinterpreting it?

Nobody laid it down, and everything is open to interpretation

That is my opinion of the general perception of what NIL meant before the legal collectives became a thing.

For me it all kind of traces back to playing EA sports NCAA games and wondering why players like Willis McGahee weren't getting paid when there was clearly a RB#2 for the '02 Miami Hurricanes who was 6'1 230lbs and a 97 in speed LOL

 

[SayWhat]

@Rellyrell keep fighting the good fight here, although it may be pointless. You and I are of the same mind here.

One thing I will say is that boy we all better hope the money keeps flowing or the switch to regulation will come so fast around here it won't even be funny.

People will only spend money for so long without results before they pull the plug. I've said from day one that the bigs will dominate this pay for play thing some call NIL. When they aren't winning, that won't fly. The rest are going to get left in the dust.

It's benefitting us now, at least it looks like it will this year, but unregulated. I don't see it being sustainable, but maybe I'll be wrong.

College football is becoming pretty lame.

 

[DMoney]

Nobody laid it down, and everything is open to interpretation

That is my opinion of the general perception of what NIL meant before the legal collectives became a thing.

For me it all kind of traces back to playing EA sports NCAA games and wondering why players like Willis McGahee weren't getting paid when there was clearly a RB#2 for the '02 Miami Hurricanes who was 6'1 230lbs and a 97 in speed LOL

I edited my post above before you responded- didn't mean to come off snarky.

I understand that interpretation. What I'm challenging is the idea that the "intent of NIL" has any value or meaning. The courts have yet to find it, which is why Saban wants Congress to grant a safe harbor from antitrust rules.

 

[Rellyrell]

We're on drunk driving verdicts in California now?

Let's get back to reality. The Supreme Court smacked the NCAA, 9-0. Conservative, liberal, all over the map. They did so because the NCAA is an illegal cartel. The reason the NCAA can't enforce their own NIL rules is because they got hit with an injunction in Tennessee.

That's why Nick Saban is asking Congress to give the NCAA a safe harbor from the rules. When the courts apply the law, the NCAA loses.

There is no "intent of NIL." And if there was, every court that looks at the issue must be misinterpreting it.

I’m working out right now, but I’m going to ether this as soon as I’m done.

#Staytuned

 

[cway313]

Has anyone mentioned you guys are doing great.

 

[swampcougar1]

Will payments for nil be limited in future. Only if and when big business decides they are not getting their monies worth. That may or may not ever happen.

 

[colperm]

I edited my post above before you responded- didn't mean to come off snarky.

I understand that interpretation. What I'm challenging is the idea that the "intent of NIL" has any value or meaning. The courts have yet to find it, which is why Saban wants Congress to grant a safe harbor from antitrust rules.

LOL. All good, I caught that.

I edited mine too actually..

In my follow up post, I'm agreeing with you in that I don't think there's any legal precedent or basis for what the "intent" of NIL is. It's an incredibly important point and explains why the fight would be taken to Congress instead of the Courts.

 

[hurricaneman]

I have said multiple times on this board that I think NIL is out of control and needs to be reigned in. But the last year or so has changed my opinion pretty dramatically. The conference realignment and TV deals happening behind the scenes, without anybody's knowledge or input, have destroyed the sport and there's no going back to the good old days.

You can't negotiate multi-billion dollar TV deals while destroying entire conferences, picking and choosing the teams you want, devastating unlucky football programs and fans in the process, and expect to yell "BUT PARITY!!!" in congress. F*** these guys.

 

[Garnacho]

Bulletpoint guy here. Just to add clarity on the situation so people aren't arguing with peple they actually don't necessarily disagree with:

- The House v NCAA settlement is on hold. It is on hold by the judge due to the terms of the deal. The main issue being a clause stating any money provide to athletes must be for valid business purposes. Enter the collectives discussion. So what are collectives exactly?
- The NCAA has agreed to pay almost $3,000,000,000 in back damages to former NCAA athletes as well as $20,000,000 annualy to institutions for institutions to then pay athletes.
- What the NCAA wants is wording that more specifically defines what collectives are. But one thing that is not coming off the table from the NCAA side is that the NCAA will be the enforcer of the rule. ***THIS POINT IS THE STICKING POINT***
- If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, this goes to trial. One thing they will be going to trail for - does NCAA's operation as a governing body violate antitrust law?
- Nick Saban is the face for the NCAA (and SEC) backed group lobbying Congress to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption

 

[Brains]

But they r not. They still get

Free room, board, & education. They r still required certain GPA’s & units to be taken. That’s the problem. One minute they wanna be treated like college students & the next like adults. Trust me; I’m around it all the time.

Not that I am not arguing that they are employees, just that they are professionals (i.e., they are being compensated for a task performed).

 

[Brains]

I do not believe in price floors or price ceilings of any kind. No caps, no minimums.

 

[Cookie917]

I understand that interpretation. What I'm challenging is the idea that the "intent of NIL" has any value or meaning. The courts have yet to find it, which is why Saban wants Congress to grant a safe harbor from antitrust rules.

I think one issue down the line is that if the pay for play thing gets smacked down as in they openly allow it just like a regular free agency, the contracts will start to limit the kids more.

Let me first say I am all for the kids getting compensated at whatever the market dictates. A salary cap wont work because NIL payments to me are more akin to a sponsorship from Nike or Adidas or Rolex, for example Patrick Mahommes can play for whatever team he wants, and still make as much money that Rolex or Nike is going to pay him, there is no cap on what Nike pays him.

But here comes the rub, Nike can put in their contract essentially non-competes, if you are signed with us we dont want to see you wearing Addidas, its a restrictive covenant. Now I think Collectives are largely a sham but totally within the rules, we all know it is pay for play and the ROI collectives receive is likely paltry making it unlike Nike or Rolex.

Now if this pendulum swings too far, what is stopping a collective from essentially putting a non-compete, i.e. we give you this NIL and you agree to not play football for any other team in NCAA? Will that hold up with the recent scrutiny around non-competes? Who knows but that I foresee as possibly an issue and harming the kids.

 

[DMoney]

People will only spend money for so long without results before they pull the plug. I've said from day one that the bigs will dominate this pay for play thing some call NIL. When they aren't winning, that won't fly. The rest are going to get left in the dust.

When have bigs not dominated?

Ten years ago, we were talking about an arms race of facilities and coaching salaries. Now we're talking about a race to pay players. The only difference is the recipient.