forums

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

SCarolina Ibis said:
This really puts Saban/Emmert into perspective:

1994: NCAA delivers official letter of inquiry accusing Alabama of rules violations ... including lack of institutional control.

1995: Alabama is placed on probation for three years, banned from a bowl appearance, ordered to give up 26 scholarships over three years and forced to foreit eight victories from 1993 (reduced to two years and 17 scholarships on appeal).

1996: NCAA strips the football program of one scholarship for failing to disclose player loans that were guaranteed by a Birmingham tire and wheel dealer.

1999: Alabama avoids NCAA sanctions following claims a former assistant basketball coach tried to create a slush fund for recruits. NCAA warns severe penalties could result from any violations over the next five years.

January 2001: The Commercial Appeal, reports that a Crimson Tide booster is said to have paid a high school coach $200,000 to steer a top recruit to Alabama.

February 2001: Alabama receives a preliminary letter of inquiry from the NCAA.

Sept. 2001: Alabama receives official notice of alleged rules violations from NCAA.

Feb. 2002: Alabama football receives five years probation, including a two-year postseason ban, because of a recruiting scandal in which boosters were accused of paying money for prep players.

Oct. 2007: University bookstore employee discovers questionable textbook charges by women’s track and field athlete, prompting internal investigation.

January 3, 2007: Nick Saban named HC.

June 11, 2009: The NCAA places 16 athletic programs, including football on three years of probation for misuse of free textbooks student athletes obtained for others using their scholarships.

November 1, 2010: Mark Emmert officially takes over as NCAA president.

2011: Alabama is a clean program
2012: Alabama is a clean program
2013: Alabama is a clean program
2014: Alabama is a clean program
2015: Alabama is a clean program
2016: Alabama is a clean program
2017: Alabama is a clean program
2018: Alabama is a clean program
2019: Alabama is a clean program
2020: Alabama is a clean program
2021: Alabama is a clean program
2022: Alabama is a clean program

March 1, 2023: Mark Emmert retires.
January 10, 2024: Saban announces his retirement.
Click to expand...
Nuff said...
 
Advertisement
Return of the U said:
I think that onus is on the collectives.

Ideally we get some bargained for revenue sharing, then we can talk about limiting transfers, cutting players, etc. Not sure why players would agree to limit their NIL in that instance either.

Schools would have to push for banning circumvention of the revenue sharing. But players would still be able to sign deals with Gatorade - or even bigger - Canesinsight - if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Revenue sharing and NIL are 2 different things. Just look at pro sports. Revenue sharing sets salaries and insurance and many other things. But the player is free to make whatever he/she can for their value off the court/field. Ther pro sports do not and cannot limit endorsement money. NIL is endorsement money. Of course player’s make more endorsement money if their performance is better, but the collective bargaining will never impact NIL because that is outside what can be collectively bargained.
 
DMoney said:
That's fine. None of us are the ones getting paid.

But I bet the majority likes our team of six-figure professional athletes beating down the Gators.
Click to expand...
For me I don’t think it’s wanting them to be paid like professionals

But the market has been established and that’s where we are at and I want them compensated accordingly

So I guess that’s a way of agreeing with everyone basically since it’s relative at this point

“Should a QB get 7 figures” is a moot point. If that’s where we are at then yeah I want to be one of the teams that stays on top whatever that number ends up being

If that makes sense
 
Brooklyndee said:
100% this is how you know the dudes that were throwing bags under the table. Cause they all know they still got that advantage over everyone else if nil is capped. To be clear I think it needs some regulating as well. But it's not just that simple.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised it took so long to point this out. Theoretically, if a cap was implemented to lets say $10M per team, UGA, Taint, Baga, and the rest of the SEC would put in much extra under the table and we would be exactly where we were pre-NIL. The NCAA is corrupt and should not be given any more power to do anything.
 
Advertisement
BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati said:
@DMoney Because I don't believe the size of cash reserves should be the deciding factor in which schools succeed in CFB. I feel as though there's a major shift in the power dynamic of CFB and I don't like the idea of a select few schools being the only ones capable of competing. I think it will lead to a few Harlem Globetrotter teams playing a ton of Washington Generals teams. I personally don't want to see more Miami vs FAMU games and I believe if there's not some sort of regulations/guidelines put in place, schools like Indiana, Arizona State, Northwestern, Michigan State, Oregon State, VaTech, Purdue, Syracuse, and the like will end up in the Generals pile. It's impossible to know this at the current time as we don't have crystal balls.

Yes I see there's nuance in this topic that I'm glazing over - things like "it's already that way" or "always has been that way." While true, now that there aren't the secret handshakes with money in the palms, do we really want schools like Texas corralling all the top recruits with lassos made of money? I think that stinks. I don't think we necessarily need 130 FCS schools, but I do think that we should have 60+ schools that can all compete at a high level. I fear that if it stays unregulated, we will be left with Texas, Ohio State (eew), Notre Lame, Michigan, USC, Nike University, and the $EC as the only teams with tv contracts and money to afford these guys. And yes, this is all my opinion, so feel free to disagree.
Click to expand...
Once we finally fast-forward to the P2, the SEC and BIG can come together and create some actual, enforced rules when it comes to NIL. In the meantime, while we still have the NCAA slapping schools on the wrist, any sort of NIL cap will just lead to more money under the table as always.
 
AtlAtty said:
My nephew’s contract is for 1 year and it is based on the value UM places on him. Your points are valid in that the real value is his ability to play basketball, but there is nothing in the contract that provides performance bonuses or anything of the sort. His value to UM is because he's a good basketball player-we can all agree. But his actual compensation is for that he does off the court, not on the court.

This may seem like semantics to you, but the entire job of lawyers is to create contracts that are within the rules.
Click to expand...
I understand it's your job to create contracts that are within the rules. At the end of the day though, with all due respect, it's bull****.

The intent at the end of the day is for your nephew in this case, to wear a Miami jersey on game nights. There is no requirement of how often he plays, that he is a starter, or anything else play related. It is all based on his NIL. However, we all know why the contract was offered and it has nothing to do with him signing his name on basketballs for an hour a week at the local ****'s Sporting Goods.

In fact, I'd argue the fact they are hiding behind NIL instead of the actual intent of the agreement (placement on the team), is hurting college football more than anything else. Since it is based on these NIL requirements instead of placement on the team, we now see just about all non-playoff bowl games with at least 25% of each side not playing.
 
bacane said:
Good luck, Nick. The last time NCAA tried capping salaries the courts hammered them.
Click to expand...
Okay Bill.

Go to Congress.

Ask for a maximum wage law designed specifically and only for college students. All college students, regardless of whether they are athletes or not. Or forbid college students at all from earning any wages.

Call it the Focus On One's Studies law.

Then get the law passed.

Absent unionization and collective bargaining with the college athletes, that's the only way that you can cap it.
 
Last edited:
AtlAtty said:
Revenue sharing and NIL are 2 different things. Just look at pro sports. Revenue sharing sets salaries and insurance and many other things. But the player is free to make whatever he/she can for their value off the court/field. Ther pro sports do not and cannot limit endorsement money. NIL is endorsement money. Of course player’s make more endorsement money if their performance is better, but the collective bargaining will never impact NIL because that is outside what can be collectively bargained.
Click to expand...
I can see the schools pushing to ban collectives in a revenue sharing model under the premise that it circumvents whatever "salary cap" they agree to.

Players would still be able to get compensation for NIL, but not necessarily from collectives.

The way things are going, I would love to see collectives stick around. Benefits us.
 
Advertisement
Return of the U said:
I can see the schools pushing to ban collectives in a revenue sharing model under the premise that it circumvents whatever "salary cap" they agree to.

Players would still be able to get compensation for NIL, but not necessarily from collectives.

The way things are going, I would love to see collectives stick around. Benefits us.
Click to expand...
Never gonna make it through court.
 
Advertisement
Lots of good thoughts here.

As a matter of the bottom line, however, the courts do not seem willing to curtail NIL, especially after last week's rejection of the pre-trial settlement of the House case by the judge.

Whether folks think NIL should or should not be regulated and/or curtailed by schools/NCAA, the judge's ruling last week indicated she has no sympathy for the idea. She doesn't think the NCAA and member institutions should be restricting payments to athletes from third parties (either true 3rd parties or collectives).

She basically told that the NCAA that if they continued to include NIL regulation (even of the collectives) in the proposed House settlement, she would dissapprove the settlement and send it back to the courts (where the NCAA would likely lose again.)

At this stage I don't see how the NIL genie ever gets put back in the bottle. No way the courts do it. I don't think Congress will do it either. Nor should they imo
 
DMoney said:
Click to expand...

Without a cap on total program spending...

facilities + staff + players...

it is impossible for the game to exist for more than just a small handfull of teams.

Is that what we want as fans?

Is that what players want for reduced opportunites?

There must be some realistic accomodation made if we want the market to sustain 20-30 teams.

If not, be content with 5-ish maybe 10-ish tops.

PS **** Saban and **** Bama
 
Advertisement
BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati said:
Dilldough or not, he's not entirely wrong. Yes he's a cheat. Yes he's a POS. Yes, F him. and yes, there needs to be some sort of limitations/regulations/ovesight placed on NIL. The coach compensation discussion is another topic that ought to be addressed as well, but those issues - and there are many - are separate of NIL compensation. Yes I can see how they're sort of related, but I also see that they're different.

Example: Jim Harbaugh. His "penalty" from the NCAA is not a joke. It's an insult to anyone with an IQ over 80. He cheated at Michigan (and probably Stanford and anywhere else for that matter), won a natty, got paid a mountain of cash along the way, then slipped out the escape hatch as the NCAA loomed, signing a five year contract with the Chargers. What does the NCAA do? Punish Michigan and give Harbaugh a four year ban from coaching in college. WTF is that? ****, even Gerald Ford's let the nation heal pardon of Nixon was better than this. (Don't take this political, please).

All of this said, how does it relate to NIL? It doesn't. Two separate issues. Now, does it make Harbaugh (or Saban) a doosh bag hypocrite? **** yes it does. What's the real soution? Some sort of limit/cap for D1 schools across the board and a separate solution for coaches like Harbaugh and Saban that cheat so that the coach is punished, not the school they left after the fact. My thought would be massive cash penalties. In the case of Harbaugh, a $4M fine or something like that. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll stop here as I'm sure I've provided enough fuel for the lawyers and wanna be lawyers in the group.

Carry on.

F Saban.
Click to expand...
You won me over with Ford and Nixon
 
BoxingRobes said:
Nick Saban is anti-American. Does not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. Limits on freedom of speech? Bet he wouldn't say anything about a cap on donations if he was running for office or back in his office as the highest paid public figure in America back at a publicly funded University.

He can kindly eat ****.
Click to expand...
That is quite the list.

I heard Saban is also a Pepsi drinker.

What a beyotch that one is.
 
Any restriction on NIL doesn’t change the fact that the best resourced schools win tend to win, at all. It just drives the money under the table. The only accurate thing you could say is that it will make sure that only the best resourced *and* connected schools will win, which perfectly describes the Saban Bama era.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top