forums

Hokies challenging Red Shirt vs Opt Out definitions in this new Revenue Share era

Advertisement
Hoyacane1620 said:
Click to expand...

Redshirting is a standard practice to preserve eligibility, not voluntary withdrawal from a program, and schools cannot void revenue-sharing payments on pay-for-play grounds. I have been retained by a Hokies player to aggressively challenge this and am happy to assist any others facing similar issues.
 
Hoyacane1620 said:
Redshirting is a standard practice to preserve eligibility, not voluntary withdrawal from a program, and schools cannot void revenue-sharing payments on pay-for-play grounds. I have been retained by a Hokies player to aggressively challenge this and am happy to assist any others facing similar issues.
Click to expand...
are you darren heitner?
 
Hoyacane1620 said:
Redshirting is a standard practice to preserve eligibility, not voluntary withdrawal from a program, and schools cannot void revenue-sharing payments on pay-for-play grounds. I have been retained by a Hokies player to aggressively challenge this and am happy to assist any others facing similar issues.
Click to expand...
Which is a bigger black eye: this for VT or Lucas for Wisconsin. The have nots are getting agressive.

VT just adjusted their budget for the next 4 years adding $229m to athletics to make up for the losses of around $50m/year. This still doesn’t addrsss major structural issues within the program and institution.
 
Hoyacane1620 said:
Redshirting is a standard practice to preserve eligibility, not voluntary withdrawal from a program, and schools cannot void revenue-sharing payments on pay-for-play grounds. I have been retained by a Hokies player to aggressively challenge this and am happy to assist any others facing similar issues.
Click to expand...
Playing devil's advocate (for the record I think VT is barking up the wrong tree for this position) but if you are hurt and redshirt, fine that is to preserve eligibility, if you are simply not playing but out there practicing and working hard every day but maybe you are a late bloomer or you have an AA in front of you, fine that is to preserve eligibility, but you voluntarily opt out? Or refuse to go in when the coach tells you? I guess I see that as different.

Taking it out of CFB arena, if I take medical leave, or a woman takes materinty leave, she still gets paid, if I am sick, I still get paid, if I put in my two weeks notice and simply stop showing up for those next two weeks, I likely dont get paid. I mean revenue sharing is for bringing eyeballs to the table for playing for VT (or some team) correct? Now NIL may be a different story but someone refusing to play for the school is entitled to a share of the schools proceeds?
 
Advertisement
Hoyacane1620 said:
Redshirting is a standard practice to preserve eligibility, not voluntary withdrawal from a program, and schools cannot void revenue-sharing payments on pay-for-play grounds. I have been retained by a Hokies player to aggressively challenge this and am happy to assist any others facing similar issues.
Click to expand...
....I mean technically yes. But also realistically it is super lame you can pay a guy with expectation they play and then THEY opt to Redshirt with intent to leave after 3 games and still collect full year long money. It should be amortized tbh. Injury would be different. But even then many in NFL don't even have injury guarantees
 
Advertisement
Unless there's a pre-existing contractual arrangement addressing a redshirt situation, don't see how VT/boosters could rescind NIL solely on the basis of a shirt.

If a player leaves the program, however, I'd imagine that's fair game for rescission.
 
Brains said:
Unless there's a pre-existing contractual arrangement addressing a redshirt situation, don't see how VT/boosters could rescind NIL solely on the basis of a shirt.

If a player leaves the program, however, I'd imagine that's fair game for rescission.
Click to expand...
Only makes sense that it is proportional if they leave the program mid-season. You're on the season for 4 games, you get 4 games worth of compensation.
 
CreativeCane said:
Do these schools have no idea how this damages their reputation with players and recruits? Hard to build a brand up when you are known for trying to cheat the players. Same with FSU's terms they were adding in the spring.
Click to expand...
I mean it's an open business now - these players are reneging on the deal they agreed to.

I've no problem with them no longer being paid if they're voluntarily redshirting so they can save a year of eligibility for their next programme.
 
90scane said:
VT just adjusted their budget for the next 4 years adding $229m to athletics to make up for the losses of around $50m/year. This still doesn’t addrsss major structural issues within the program and institution.
Click to expand...

They plan to raise their budget that much, but have to still find $120 million of that number in uncommitted booster funding. They might get half of that, but that’s still a massive shortfall.

They plan to raise student fees to over 1K a year - expect pushback there.

The bridge funding is going to come back and bite them in the *** too.

The school threw that number out there without the commitment, any real coach is going to look around and call their bluff.
 
Back
Top