forums

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

JamesQuall said:
yes, the institution should hold all the power. The players should count their lucky stars they even have the opportunity.

Anybody that dissents should be tarred and feathered
Click to expand...
Collectives aren’t paying for the students to just pump iron, you gotta actually be available on the sideline. They are players - playing is a part of the job
 
Advertisement
Highline17 said:
Collectives aren’t paying for the students to just pump iron, you gotta actually be available on the sideline. They are players - playing is a part of the job
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct NIL does not equal Name Image Likeness. It means you only collect a check if you take snaps. How foolish of me.

Time for that ******* to pay every red cent back to the school plus 39% interest. If he doesn’t pay black list him so that he can never do anything for the rest of his life.

How dare he make a decision for himself. ******* ****head how dare he.
 
Oh they about to be sued out the ***.. they might as well shut football program down.. cause who the **** gon want to go there now
 
RozayCane said:
Oh they about to be sued out the ***.. they might as well shut football program down.. cause who the **** gon want to go there now
Click to expand...
Nah dog, you should side with the university. As Jordan said:

1758939392616.jpeg
 
Let’s be serious here. These kids aren’t redshirting, they’re opting out. If you refuse to play, at the very least, you should have to forfeit your NIL. Welcome to the real world. You have to work or you don’t get paid. And of course as soon as you hit the portal, all deals with the previous school should be null and void.

Go ahead and take it to court to clear it up. If these opt outs continue, the powers that be will make sure rev share and NIL contracts have clauses in them that make opt outs mean no payments.
 
Last edited:
PalyCane said:
That's a fine opinion, but completely contrary to the NCAA's own rules.


View attachment 337491
Click to expand...
The NCAA isn’t gonna get involved in NIL deals that are only valid if the player is on the team. Schools aren’t gonna allow players to opt out after a rough start to a season and allow them to collect money and then bounce at the end of the year. They’ll be kicked off the team.
 
PSU Cane said:
It's a slippery slope and will be very interesting to see how schools and courts handle this.

Also playing devil's advocate - If you are being paid to play and choose not to play, it's a choice, not a forced withdrawal by the school. It's no different if an NFL player is being paid a contract and chooses to sit. That team can recoup the money in fines. It's also no different than an academic scholarship being revoked bc you aren't meeting expectations for the scholarship.

The revenue sharing is not NIL. That is 2 different topics. NIL is payment regardless of play. College football is an unregulated Wild West and eventually teams losing in that arms race will try something different. They have no choice. Status quo will not benefit them. Even if they take a short-term hit, they might think setting an example for others to follow might change the landscape moving forward.
Click to expand...
I spent enough time in that part of Virginia to be convinced that if Heitner files a suit there with that jury pool, out there, they’re not going to be very sympathetic to him.
 
JamesQuall said:
yes, the institution should hold all the power. The players should count their lucky stars they even have the opportunity.

Anybody that dissents should be tarred and feathered
Click to expand...
The only difference between a player redshirting after 4 games during his freshman year and this situation is that, in the former case the player is redshirting because the coach/institution wants him to redshirt to preserve a year of eligibility in which he would presumably play and contribute for the coach/institution in more than 4 games. In both cases a full year of eligibility is preserved in the 5-year window.

Larger issue is the NCAA needs to quit dragging their feet on changing the eligibility model. Nix the redshirt, which is absurd, and move to a five year eligibility model. This situation couldn't happen under the 5-yr model. The player could transfer and sit out till the spring, or he could continue to play the rest of the year under the interim coach.
 
Seems to me that Redshirting is typically done by decision of the athletic department, not the players themselves.

I know that certain professions allow for sabbaticals, typically without pay, meaning you take a leave of absence while still maintaining your position.

It's one of those situations that no one really thought of before NIL, and now that we have it, it's a problem.

Personally, when NIL came down the pipe, I thought to myself "We will see similar tactics that NFL players have used, such as holding out."

Personally, if you sign a contract with a company, and if it wasn't explicitly stated in the contract you had control over taking a redshirt due to lack of playing time, you probably don't have a right to it. Redshirting, excluding players applying for a 'medical redshirt' (which is different), I think the power of Redshirting has always been the responsibility of the athletic department/football team.
 
Advertisement
Since we're on the subject; eventually, there is going to have to be a universal limit on how much players are paid for NIL deals on teams.

There probably will be a NIL (salary) cap eventually. Probably within 10 years. And honestly, they need to start on it now.
 
I have no problem with the player taking a voluntary redshirt, especially if they’re buried on the depth chart and not playing much, if at all. No sense burning a year of eligibility because you play in a few games later in the season. I think the school should the honor the revenue sharing agreement.

The problem is there’s no way for the school to know the player’s intent. He may not add his name to the portal now, but there’s nothing to prevent him from doing so when the portal window opens at the end of the season.

Maybe revenue sharing agreements should include language to reduce payments if the player chooses to voluntary redshirt, and the coaching staff agrees to the redshirt. Financial considerations aside it may be in the best interest for the player to not participate in games, preserve eligibility while developing on the practice field and in the weight room.

I understand NIL is not to be pay-for-play, but isn’t a player’s market value based on his play? Maybe he doesn’t make more NIL money for every touchdown scored but no one is interested in a player sitting on the bench.

Collectives and players can insure themselves against a season-ending injury, covering the minimums of the NIL agreement. In the case of a voluntary redshirt the player is choosing to sit out the remainder of the season. I don’t understand why a player making this choice believes he is entitled to any further payments.
 
Last edited:
TerragonSix said:
Seems to me that Redshirting is typically done by decision of the athletic department, not the players themselves.

I know that certain professions allow for sabbaticals, typically without pay, meaning you take a leave of absence while still maintaining your position.

It's one of those situations that no one really thought of before NIL, and now that we have it, it's a problem.

Personally, when NIL came down the pipe, I thought to myself "We will see similar tactics that NFL players have used, such as holding out."

Personally, if you sign a contract with a company, and if it wasn't explicitly stated in the contract you had control over taking a redshirt due to lack of playing time, you probably don't have a right to it. Redshirting, excluding players applying for a 'medical redshirt' (which is different), I think the power of Redshirting has always been the responsibility of the athletic department/football team.
Click to expand...
"Division I student-athletes have five years to compete in up to four seasons of competition. The new exception allows football players to preserve a season of competition if, for example, injuries or other factors result in them competing in a small number of games."


From the NCAA's press release when they adopted the 4-game redshirt rule. I can't find anything more official from NCAA. "Other factors" strikes me as broad enough to include the VTech situation. I doubt VTech/NCAA would have much success arguing that under the five year window: a coach could unilaterally redshirt a player (by not playing him in more than four games), a player could make an agreement with his coach to redshirt for development reasons, but a player couldn't avail himself of his redshirt when his coach fired after the third game of the season.
 
flips said:
"Division I student-athletes have five years to compete in up to four seasons of competition. The new exception allows football players to preserve a season of competition if, for example, injuries or other factors result in them competing in a small number of games."


From the NCAA's press release when they adopted the 4-game redshirt rule. I can't find anything more official from NCAA. "Other factors" strikes me as broad enough to include the VTech situation. I doubt VTech/NCAA would have much success arguing that under the five year window: a coach could unilaterally redshirt a player (by not playing him in more than four games), a player could make an agreement with his coach to redshirt for development reasons, but a player couldn't avail himself of his redshirt when his coach fired after the third game of the season.
Click to expand...
I don't know, it's pretty hazy man. What if a players wants to redshirt, but the coach wants him to play? Does the player have the right to refuse to play and take his redshirt'? Probably not. If you have a scholarship to play football, and the agreement is that you have to play in lieu for scholaship, tuition, room and board, I don't think the player has a legal leg to stand on in court by saying, "Well I wanted to take a redshirt to take time to develop."

Not his call. If he plays more than 4 games, unless he is injured, he can't redshirt. Sure, he could holdout and refuse to play, but that would likely constitute breach of contract. The NIL deal could blow up in smoke too, as while NIL doesn't count as 'compensation for athletic performance', it wouldn't overly surprise me that the NIL deal has language that says, "If you holdout or refuse contractual obligations, we can terminate the deal." Probably morals clauses in there as well 'conduct determimental to the sponsor/brand'.
 
The whole thing is such a joke. NIL should absolutely involve pay to play because as others have noted the value of the player is in his performance or at least the potential performance. Players should also be at will employees, which would help address a ton of the issues.
 
Advertisement
I don't know... I am usually with the players but if a player is demanding they redshirt so that in all likelihood they can transfer at the end of the season, why should I have to keep paying you? What happens if enough players demand a redshirt that VT can't field a team? If you want out of the program, that is fine but why should I have to keep paying you if you won't play?
 
grover said:
The whole thing is such a joke. NIL should absolutely involve pay to play because as others have noted the value of the player is in his performance or at least the potential performance. Players should also be at will employees, which would help address a ton of the issues.
Click to expand...
Players being employees would solve so many of their issues, but they are deathly afraid of making them players which is why they keep trying to get congress to carve out special rules for them so that they can have the advantages of treating them like employees w/o the players having the advantages that come with being actual employees
 
grover said:
The whole thing is such a joke. NIL should absolutely involve pay to play because as others have noted the value of the player is in his performance or at least the potential performance. Players should also be at will employees, which would help address a ton of the issues.
Click to expand...
I don't think NIL should be pay to play. That should just be standard endorsement deals.

Rev share should ABSOLUTELY be pay to play.

I'm with the school here. If the coach wants you to compete in games and you choose not to for your eligibility then you shouldn't be paid in the Rev share pool.

If there's mutual agreement on the shirt or the coach decides you're shirting then you should still be paid in the Rev share.

But agree on the premise that we need to stop pretending that they're not being paid to play.
 
Back
Top