re: UNLV QB quits immediately over NIL

quote:

---

Can you define “interactions” in this context? There were never rules that said athletes couldn’t be employed by boosters if that’s what you are implying. That only became an issue when they were being paid without actually working as it became an impermissible benefit, pay to play, etc.

---

Boosters have always been treated as an extension of the school for NCAA regulatory purposes.

Something to think about: The vacated wins under Miles occurred because the NCAA found that Vadal Alexander’s father was employed by a booster in a no-show job. As a booster, John Paul Funes was classified as a “representative of the institution’s athletic interests” under NCAA bylaws. The first bylaw referenced in the notice of allegations was 16.11.2.1, which says:

quote:

---

16.11.2.1 General Rule. [A] The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "extra benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or the student-athlete's family members or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. [R] (Revised: 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13)

---

The NOA also cited the bylaws that list benefits which are expressly authorized by the NCAA. But I won’t post the complete list here. It’s basically limited to “actual and necessary” expenses related to practice and competition.

Here’s my point: This is a clear example of the NCAA regulating a business relationship between a booster and a player’s family member. If they could regulate that at the time, what would stop them from regulating a business relationship between a booster and an actual player?

quote:

---

Boosters have always been treated as an extension of the school for NCAA regulatory purposes. Something to think about: The vacated wins under Miles occurred because the NCAA found that Vadal Alexander’s father was employed by a booster in a no-show job. As a booster, John Paul Funes was classified as a “representative of the institution’s athletic interests” under NCAA bylaws.

---

None of this conflicts with anything I posted. The father being employed by the booster wasn’t the issue, it was being paid without actually working. The same would have applied if it was Alexander himself who had the no show job. See Rhett Bomar Oklahoma.

quote:

---

None of this conflicts with anything I posted. The father being employed by the booster wasn’t the issue, it was being paid without actually working. The same would have applied if it was Alexander himself who had the no show job. See Rhett Bomar Oklahoma.

---

Right. So you’re saying the NCAA can (or, again, could in the past) go after a school if a player has a “job” where a booster pays him for bullshite “work”?

How exactly is this different than a collective, which only exists to pay players, paying a kid $100k to appear at some dinner?

You could argue that the difference is that the player is actually delivering on his obligations under the NIL contract, I guess. So if Funes simply stipulated that Vadal’s dad only had to show up one day for his “job” then we would have been in the clear? That seems like a stretch.

The actual rules from the Division 1 Manual that are cited in the LSU notice of allegations don’t say “a player or parent can’t have a no show job.” They say a player or parent can’t receive any extra benefit, defined as any special arrangement by a school or booster to provide any benefits beyond those that are expressly authorized under NCAA rules.

If the exact same impermissible benefits situation (a player’s parent at a no-show job) happened today, the NCAA wouldn’t be able to enforce shite because they’d get sued for antitrust violations and lose. That’s their problem.

CFB had a good, long run. All things must come to an end eventually. RIP college football.

quote:

---

Incentive on making the right choice originally. Only question I have would it stand up in court? I guess if there is a CBA it would, but I doubt players would go for that.

---

Imo... IDGAF if the players go for it. Put the rules in place, and make them sign the contract coming out of HS by telling them they can't play college ball if they don't accept the set rules as laid out. Frick'em.

Everyone is concerned about the players, and not the customers. Lifelong Fans and Alums like me are walking away because they keep putting the players first, and forgetting who matters at the end of the day.

I use to spend Saturdays in the fall watching games from espn GameDay thru West Coast games. I would set up multiple TVs to catch big games. Id skip family events. Had one of my sisters who wanted a fall wedding call me to review dates with my schools game schedule. I would tell gfs that they can expect me to have a pretty fluid schedule wise every Saturday of the year other than in the fall, those are my days. Don't expect me to do anything, but what I want and that's most likely CFB related. I use to easily spend 5k-10k a year on CFB travel/tix/merch/garbage for my "man cave" alone.

Now?? I barely catch my schools games if I have time. I'll dvr a big game, and maybe catch it on Sunday. FF thru most of it. And if by chance I hear the score I'll most likely just delete it without watching it. I haven't spent a penny on CFB related anything the last few yrs. Them going political + this nil/transfer garbage isn't worth my time or money. This change is not from life changes as the little lady came in when the rules were set, so she still "clears it up with me" on fall Saturdays. Which is a nice trump card to have in case I want to get out of something.

Everything the school admins and reps talk about is what's best for the players, but forget about the customer. CFB schools will eventually be wondering why they aren't getting the ROI from all this money going to players. Or maybe not, but I know if there isn't a drastic u turn, I'm at least out. And the love for cfb/sports in general won't get past on to my children.

Man your comment really triggered my feels on this this morning /rant

quote:

---

Guy quit on his teammates

---

A stupid football euphemism that doesn’t carry over to real life.

They have reaped plenty rewards. They live like kings on campus. Frickem they got paid plenty imo. Both by the schools, and under the table. I saw plenty of it at peak levels when I was in school, so your opinion means nothing to me. To me cfb as a whole is more important than them reaping the rewards like they are now. Either way all that matters to me is that I no longer pay for the product cfb is putting out.

I get TV contracts drives stuff, but still all the school/NCAA reps only speak about what's best for the "student" athlete. I caught some of the last CWS and it was either the NCAA commish or SECs commish being interviewed and not once did he mention that that they are concerned about how the new product changes will affect the fan/customer base. Fricken

quote:

---

I get TV contracts drives stuff, but still all the school/NCAA reps only speak about what's best for the "student" athlete.

---

That’s all BS. They tell us that, but make kids play at 2:30 in the Summer. They say that and schedule conference games between Rutgers and Oregon. They say that and coaches jump ship all the time.

It’s a lot of propaganda. They can’t tell you it’s all about the money.

That's all great and all, but the product is being diminished either way. That's what I'm seeing and what I'm reacting too.

Like many, I knew shite like in the OP was coming down the pipe eventually. Many first actually got to see it with that QB Ewers kid.

I went thru CFB detox yrs ago and not looking back unless I see drastic changes back. I dropped pro sports ions ago because of all of this drama over pay, so did it with college sports now.