- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: UNLV QB quits immediately over NIL
Posted on 9/25/24 at 5:13 pm to lostinbr
Posted on 9/25/24 at 5:13 pm to lostinbr
quote:In an ideal world NIL would truly be about NIL, but that isn’t the world we live in. The NCAA knew that all along and that’s why their stance on it was so strong. Once they were forced into allowing athletes with those deals to retain eligibility they lost all control over it because they can’t regulate anything within a business deal between two other parties, assuming one or both of those parties aren’t dumb enough to put in writing that it is tied to playing for a specific school.
In an ideal world
There is no in between. It’s the chaos we have now or it’s not allowed at all. ETA: And by not allowed I mean NCAA eligibility wise. They were always allowed to enter into whatever contract they wanted to, they just couldn’t compete in the NCAA if that’s what they chose.
This post was edited on 9/25/24 at 5:17 pm
1
Posted on 9/25/24 at 5:16 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
Every player who takes the field forfeits all NIL. Every player gets paid from TV deals. The players' pay is incentivized toward graduation, bowl games, red-shirting via bonuses. The pay is scaled so that with each year a player's pay is say doubled. And disincentivized toward transferring. If a player transfers out he takes nothing with him and effectively starts over at his new school
I like this.
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.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 5:51 pm to white beans
Employee????
Posted on 9/25/24 at 6:16 pm to white beans
quote:
i'm sure you're ok with your employers skipping pay day then
Contracts work both ways, dumbass. I have one, so there are no skipped paydays. All of my benefits, profit sharing, etc. are locked in. I also have a brief direct non-compete since I am a part owner (never planning on leaving since I have skin in the game), so it works both ways.
I may not have said it in my original comment because the current changes are what’s driving instability, realignment, and we are seeing the beginnings of fans backing away because of those changes, but contracts will make the schools abide by their word and spell out NIL in a way that they don’t do today. Players would lose a bit of their current freedom, but they will gain certainty. This will be better for the majority of players who aren’t stars and can’t get massive deals.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 6:22 pm to Alt26
quote:
It's not the Supreme Court's job to legislate college football. The ruling essentially just affirm it was an Anti-Trust violation for the NCAA to prohibit players from being able to be receive "non-cash education-related benefits. This isn't something that just snuck up on the NCAA. This had been coming for years prior to the Alston decision. The NCAA chose to fight it rather than accept the inevitable and try to develop a workable structure. Now, that failure to act is going to be to the NCAA's demise.
I agree. The NCAA bears the most fault for this mess with their stupidity and reactionary mindset. And I DEFINITELY agree it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s place to legislate NIL.
My issue with them is how incredibly naive there were in prohibiting any restrictions. That opened the door to rampant abuse of the original intent of NIL. They went too far and ended up creating a mess because of it. They should have left room for laws to be passed and challenged in court and regulations to be agreed upon over time.
This post was edited on 9/25/24 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 9/25/24 at 6:26 pm to Allthatfades
Smells like tampering.
Which school with a combination of morally bankrupt coaches and unscrupulous boosters is whispering in the UNLV quarterback’s ear, and why is it Auburn?
Which school with a combination of morally bankrupt coaches and unscrupulous boosters is whispering in the UNLV quarterback’s ear, and why is it Auburn?
Posted on 9/25/24 at 6:31 pm to Allthatfades
Can you imagine if the Commanders just decided to not pay Jayden Daniels?
Posted on 9/25/24 at 6:32 pm to Sevreaux
quote:
I see a lot of people in this post lack reading comprehension skills. UNLV made promises and waffled on them. They sold him a fake bill of goods to get him on campus and once there they said nah, we’re only giving ya 3k to relocate.
So his lawyer and Dad say. Unless he provides proof of this offer, he isn’t any more trustworthy than the school. It’s just really easy to spin a college kid being a victim of a school, whether you have proof or not.
Think about it this way- UNLV isn’t a top-tier G5 program. They are improving, but have been mediocre for over a decade before Odom got there. The G5 don’t have big TV payouts. How realistic do you think a six figure offer to a QB from a lower division is? That is fishy as hell.
If UNLV lied, first off, the family and this agent were stupid to take an assistant coach’s word on this. NIL deals of that size are put in writing. Second, I wouldn’t blame him for leaving if we see some proof the school screwed him. Surely they have a couple of these calls recorded or something on paper.
This post was edited on 9/25/24 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 9/25/24 at 6:44 pm to MOT
quote:
In an ideal world NIL would truly be about NIL, but that isn’t the world we live in. The NCAA knew that all along and that’s why their stance on it was so strong. Once they were forced into allowing athletes with those deals to retain eligibility they lost all control over it because they can’t regulate anything within a business deal between two other parties, assuming one or both of those parties aren’t dumb enough to put in writing that it is tied to playing for a specific school.
There is no in between. It’s the chaos we have now or it’s not allowed at all. ETA: And by not allowed I mean NCAA eligibility wise. They were always allowed to enter into whatever contract they wanted to, they just couldn’t compete in the NCAA if that’s what they chose.
Respectfully, I disagree with the premise of this post - or at least what I think the premise is.
It sounds like you’re saying the reason the NCAA can’t enforce any NIL rules is because NIL is a contract between the player and a third party, where the NCAA has no purview. And it sounds like you’re saying if the NCAA had never allowed (or been forced to allow) NIL in the first place, they could have maintained the status quo.
That last point is a little moot because as you sort of alluded, the NCAA was forced to allow NIL due to state laws. But I don’t believe NIL itself or the third-party nature of the deals is the issue here.
The NCAA has always (at least in my lifetime) regulated “boosters” and their interactions with athletes or prospective athletes. If this were happening 10 years ago, they would be able to do the same thing with respect to NIL. Players would be free to enter into NIL contracts, but if the counterparty were considered a booster there would be additional scrutiny. This would allow them to regulate (or outright ban) the deals with collectives and individual big money donors.
The issue, today, is a combination of A) the patchwork of state-level laws and B) the legal climate around the NCAA and antitrust issues. The antitrust issues are not specific to NIL. Look at the transfer eligibility restrictions. The NCAA’s losses on that issue have nothing to do with 3rd party contracts.
The courts have determined that their entire business model does not stand up to antitrust scrutiny. That’s the real reason they will never dig out of this hole without collective bargaining or federal legislation.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:04 pm to andwesway
quote:
They offered a kid who completes about 44% of his passes $100K to play?!?
Well then no problem right? Because stats tell the whole story and the Rebs are nationally ranked for the first time in forever despite having a bad QB, right?
Sluka is effective because of his legs and his arm. You clearly haven’t watched a UNLV game (which is totally understandable but also disqualifies you from opining). Sluka is a difference maker and they stiffed him. Boot licking for liars is a terrible look.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:05 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:
Yes. in a sense... and it's always been this way.
a school offers a scholarship. that scholarship has to be renewed and the school is not obligated to renew said scholarship. prior to Covid and the scholarship changes allowing players to transfer and be immediately available... it was rare that a school did this and mostly did it for disciplinary or academic reasons. if a kid wasn't good enough, most coaches was encourage the kid to transfer.
The part in bold is not entirely true. It might be accurate for a school like UNLV, but the “autonomy conferences” (which means power 5 conferences) have additional requirements.
quote:
15.3.4.3 Reduction or Nonrenewal Not Permitted - After the Period of the Award. [A] If a student-athlete receives athletically related financial aid in the academic year of initial full-time enrollment at the certifying institution, the following factors shall not be considered in the reduction or nonrenewal of such aid for the following academic year or years of the student-athlete's five-year period of eligibility: (Adopted: 1/17/15 effective 8/1/15)
(a) A student-athlete's athletics ability, performance or contribution to a team's success (e.g., financial aid contingent upon specified performance or playing a specific position);
(b) An injury, illness, or physical or mental medical condition; or
(c) Any other athletics reason.
The “[A]” in the title means that the section only applies to autonomy conferences. It’s a bit of a mouthful, but this section effectively means that teams cannot choose to non-renew an athletic scholarship based on any reasons related to athletic performance.
There is another section that lists the reasons a school can choose to non-renew a scholarship. The school can cancel or non-renew a scholarship if the player:
quote:
(a) Is rendered ineligible for intercollegiate competition based on the recipient's action or inaction;
(b) Fraudulently misrepresents any information on an application, letter of intent or financial aid agreement (see Bylaw 15.3.4.1.3);
(c) Engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary penalty, as determined by the institution's regular student disciplinary authority;
(d) Voluntarily (on the recipient's own initiative) withdraws from a sport at any time for personal reasons; however, the recipient's financial aid may not be awarded to another student-athlete in the academic term in which the aid is reduced or canceled;
(e) Violates a nonathletically related condition outlined in the financial aid agreement or violates a documented institutional rule or policy (e.g., academics policies or standards, athletics department or team rules or policies); or
(f) Provides written notification of transfer (see Bylaw 13.1.1.3) to the institution; however, the student-athlete's financial aid may not be reduced or canceled until the end of the regular academic term in which written notification of transfer is received. If a student-athlete provides written notification of transfer to the institution between regular academic terms (winter break, summer break) the institution may reduce or cancel the financial aid immediately.
Note that the rules above only apply to players at power-5 conference schools. They also only apply to players who received athletic scholarships whenever they first enrolled at the school. In other words, they do not apply to a walk on who was awarded a scholarship after they had already been at the school for some amount of time.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:07 pm to lostinbr
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.
The NCAA has always (at least in my lifetime) regulated “boosters” and their interactions with athletes or prospective athletes.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:09 pm to TopWaterTiger
quote:
hing. Base it off their recruiting stars, or their position, or whatever. Every 4* gets between x-y Every 5* gets between y-z.,
What? Are you kidding. You want the recruiting hacks to have more power than they already have?
The fact is, we are experiencing the growing pains of capitalism. UNLV promised a large sum. The kid doesn’t get it in writing but he trusted his recruiter. Now they are welching under the view of “what’s he gonna do about it.” Well, he’s “doing something about it” and people are all up in arms.
How about fulfilling your promises, UNLV?
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:18 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
Every player who takes the field forfeits all NIL. Every player gets paid from TV deals. The players' pay is incentivized toward graduation, bowl games, red-shirting via bonuses. The pay is scaled so that with each year a player's pay is say doubled. And disincentivized toward transferring. If a player transfers out he takes nothing with him and effectively starts over at his new school.
That’s a hell of an idea…for the schools and the coaches. Under your guise a kid without means has to choose between steadily increasing pay and what’s in his best interests in terms of playing time. And you forbid him his right to use his name, image and likeness which the Supreme Court said was his right. So your solution is one sided and unconstitutional. It’s also stupid because it is fully based on punishments of the source of labor rather than a system that creates incentives for both labor and management to grow the pie.
The right answer here is a collectively bargained arrangement that is utilitarian for the players (I.e., benefits the largest number of players even if a few get less), is legal and is acceptable to the schools. We still have to have a few more years of craziness before smart people prevail.
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:43 pm to Allthatfades
Wait a minute. How has UNLV been able to remain the Rebels through all of these sensitive cancel culture years yet Ole Miss had to drop their Rebels name?
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:47 pm to Allthatfades
quote:
The senior has completed 21 of 48 passes
Kid out of your coaches office. Go get some extra work in kid.
Also, if he didn't sign an NIL deal and trusted an asst coaches word, the the fault lies with him and his family
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:48 pm to Nutriaitch
There will be 50 Salukas coming out of high schools next year. He better get his arse back on the field
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:48 pm to chadr07
quote:
Wait a minute. How has UNLV been able to remain the Rebels through all of these sensitive cancel culture years yet Ole Miss had to drop their Rebels name?
Because they aren’t in the south. Also, who has ever given a shite about UNLV outside of a 6 or so year window in the mid-80s to early 90s?
Posted on 9/25/24 at 7:50 pm to mjax57
You right. We don’t know what wasn’t fulfilled but you immediately jump to punishing the player? Players get lied to all of the time. It’s good that they are regaining some of the power imbalance that has been there for so long.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News