Search results

Offering money is not the issue. Offering money that's not based on NIL (i.e., showing up for appearances, having to promote something, etc.) is the issue, and I have no idea whether that's what the collective did. It's why Ruiz is above board. Everything that is tied to NIL payments requires...

Unless the promotional considerations are fairy dust, and players cash checks for doing nothing more than signing on the dotted line on Signing Day. Honestly, I don't understand the hysterics. This is really not a big deal.

And that Josh Heupel was Scott Frost's offensive coordinator at UCF.

It depends. If you sign up for a set of rules that says "players can receive NIL," and the NCAA changes things to say "players can receive NIL but only 20 years after you graduate," that's significant enough to constitute the same antitrust violations that were alleged in Alston. Here, that's...

NCAA v. Alston - the case that opened the door for NIL - was an antitrust lawsuit. The scope of that case and ruling challenged the very bedrock of whether the NCAA could preclude athletes from receiving compensation. This new regulation offered by the NCAA does nothing to impact that. It...

It will not. Arbitration clauses often contain provisions that allow for burdens of proof to be far lower than what is required by the courts. And innocent until proven guilty does not apply in civil cases (which is preponderance of the evidence), and at the end of the day choosing to be a...

Nothing in the rule precludes players from collecting NIL checks. They're limiting the evidentiary standards for proving the "pay to play" arrangements we're seeing now, which are currently precluded in those same rules. There's not a court in this country that's going to meddle in the...

It absolutely will.