forums

NIL hearings

Advertisement
Midlo Cane Fan said:
Click to expand...



This is encouraging.

If they are ACTUALLY going to listen to someone, and not just someone with a vested interest (like Saban/Dabo or a recent player), then you probably can't get someone too much better than a Heisman Trophy winner who also knows finance and the sports business world.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
This is encouraging.

If they are ACTUALLY going to listen to someone, and not just someone with a vested interest (like Saban/Dabo or a recent player), then you probably can't get someone too much better than a Heisman Trophy winner who also knows finance and the sports business world.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but is it even possible to pass a law with limits on NIL that is constitutional? After the most recent Supreme Court decision I would argue that any attempt to limit earning power is doomed to failure in the courts.
 
AtlAtty said:
Agreed, but is it even possible to pass a law with limits on NIL that is constitutional? After the most recent Supreme Court decision I would argue that any attempt to limit earning power is doomed to failure in the courts.
Click to expand...
I've been wondering the same thing. You can't stop it at this point. The only way to slow it down is to adjust the transfer portal:
  • You get one free transfer after your second year out of high school, otherwise you need a waiver to not have to sit a year.
  • Exception would be if the head coach is fired by the school (not leaves on their own and takes half the team with him).
  • Graduate transfers also okay as that would also be a minimum 2 years in one spot.
This would massively stop the tampering and free agency of the portal, while still being fair to the players and allowing them to profit on their NIL.
 
CreativeCane said:
I've been wondering the same thing. You can't stop it at this point. The only way to slow it down is to adjust the transfer portal:
  • You get one free transfer after your second year out of high school, otherwise you need a waiver to not have to sit a year.
  • Exception would be if the head coach is fired by the school (not leaves on their own and takes half the team with him).
  • Graduate transfers also okay as that would also be a minimum 2 years in one spot.
This would massively stop the tampering and free agency of the portal, while still being fair to the players and allowing them to profit on their NIL.
Click to expand...
Nice. Very creative (see what I did for ya') but I don't like the second point. I'd say, if the head coach leaves for any reason, a player should be free to go as well.

Your thoughts and why?

Thanks
 
2xbamm said:
Nice. Very creative (see what I did for ya') but I don't like the second point. I'd say, if the head coach leaves for any reason, a player should be free to go as well.

Your thoughts and why?

Thanks
Click to expand...
I just think we have to slow down this whole idea of taking a huge chunk of your team with you. It can really hurt the old school, as well as pulling scholarships from guys at the new school without giving them a chance. Looking at Deion and Lincoln Riley. That's not to say guys can't move during that one-time free transfer after their second year—which for some of those guys, it would align with the coach leaving—but it shouldn't be a free for all, IMO.

Another creative idea I've seen that I like is treating scholarships like contracts. You can offer X number of 1-year or 2-year scholarships. If you transfer before the end of the contract term, you have to sit a year.
 
CreativeCane said:
I've been wondering the same thing. You can't stop it at this point. The only way to slow it down is to adjust the transfer portal:
  • You get one free transfer after your second year out of high school, otherwise you need a waiver to not have to sit a year.
  • Exception would be if the head coach is fired by the school (not leaves on their own and takes half the team with him).
  • Graduate transfers also okay as that would also be a minimum 2 years in one spot.
This would massively stop the tampering and free agency of the portal, while still being fair to the players and allowing them to profit on their NIL.
Click to expand...
I agree that the transfer portal is the only place as there really isn’t a constitutional issue involved unless someone gets a really creative and argues a limitation on transfers is somehow akin to indentured servitude and a violation of the 13th-15th amendments. If I was truly a constitutional law scholar I would know which Civil Rights amendment it is. But that case would take so long that the person bringing the suit would be 30 before the litigation was complete. Anyways we are in the weeds now but I agree wholeheartedly with your original point.
 
hold up

but if a kid who is getting an NIL or could get an NIL wants to transfer then wouldn't any attempt by the NCAA to prevent them mean they were interfering with their right to earn a living off their NIL?

IOW, isn't the portal inextricably linked to NIL now?
 
Advertisement
CreativeCane said:
I just think we have to slow down this whole idea of taking a huge chunk of your team with you. It can really hurt the old school, as well as pulling scholarships from guys at the new school without giving them a chance. Looking at Deion and Lincoln Riley. That's not to say guys can't move during that one-time free transfer after their second year—which for some of those guys, it would align with the coach leaving—but it shouldn't be a free for all, IMO.

Another creative idea I've seen that I like is treating scholarships like contracts. You can offer X number of 1-year or 2-year scholarships. If you transfer before the end of the contract term, you have to sit a year.
Click to expand...
LOVE the last idea!
 
My feelings in this regard is that they should do away with the word commit. Most signees and those advising these young players don’t even know the meaning of the word. There is no loyalty or honor here. Today a player commits to a team but you can’t bet on it till he is on campus and on the sideline. Future commits are a joke. A verbal today or even a hand shake has no meaning.
any player who does follow through should be free to transfer once without any penalty. After that he sits a year. Let them make as much money as they can. CU got 85 transfers and not one of them could give a **** about the university. They play for themselves. Give them their money but at least try to restore some sense of loyalty to the university they supposedly represent, the students the alumni and fans.
 
stormsurge said:
hold up

but if a kid who is getting an NIL or could get an NIL wants to transfer then wouldn't any attempt by the NCAA to prevent them mean they were interfering with their right to earn a living off their NIL?

IOW, isn't the portal inextricably linked to NIL now?
Click to expand...
Aren't scholarships essentially contracts, though? There are non-competes in contracts all the time. An NFL player who signs with a team is giving up opportunities for promotions in other cities. Just because another team COULD potentially offer a better deal doesn't dissolve the contract. It's not an absolute right regardless of what a contract says. The issue was the NCAA said the student-athletes had zero right to profit from NIL. Signing with a specific school and then missing on an opportunity elsewhere isn't a violation of that.
 
AtlAtty said:
Agreed, but is it even possible to pass a law with limits on NIL that is constitutional? After the most recent Supreme Court decision I would argue that any attempt to limit earning power is doomed to failure in the courts.
Click to expand...


I partially disagree with the last sentence THOUGH THE THRESHOLD WILL BE HIGH. The key will be narrow tailoring. No limit on dollar AMOUNT, but very specific limits on compensation TYPE.

Name
Image
Licensing

The second and third ones could be fairly easy to define. The first one is tough, since that could encompass autograph signings, which seem to be the easiest and most abused type of "service" provided in exchange for "NIL Compensation".

And I don't think "time" (post-enrollment) and "economic substance" requirements should be too difficult to define.

If you give a guy a ton of money for doing (essentially) nothing, it's a GIFT. Paying Jaden Rashada $14M for a handful of autographs which have no discernible fair market value (and, yes, the IRS knows how to make those determinations) could have been considered a $14M gift, not a payment for services.

Pass the laws, let the IRS draft the Regs, and then see if "I Like Beer" can swing 4 other justices to his hysterical concurrence.
 
Last edited:
Beginning of the end. Congress does not protect athletes. The levers of government are used to protect institutions of power. That's what will come of any legislation.

Gino's opinion is meaningless to sub-humans (ie: elected officials) unless its backed up with a seven figure bribe of some kind. My guess is that the media will get to write this bill.
 
AtlAtty said:
Agreed, but is it even possible to pass a law with limits on NIL that is constitutional? After the most recent Supreme Court decision I would argue that any attempt to limit earning power is doomed to failure in the courts.
Click to expand...
Technically the Supreme Court did not rule on NIL, but something else closely related that most believe would apply to NIL, but with that out of the way... what they ruled was that it violated anti-trust laws which are not constitutional. Congress can simply pass/amend the law to allow limits on NIL. One can certainly argue if they should be able to, but that is a different question.

Also, you are going to have a hard time getting Republicans and Democrats to come together on this since - generally speaking - the Republicans want to limit it and be more school friendly and the Democrats prefer to make it more friendly to the players, but there has been some recent developments in meeting in the middle, at least among a few Republicans and Democrats.

This post is about something specific Missouri was doing, but talks in general about what was/wasn't ruled on and what laws NIL limitations would likely currently run a foul of:

 
Advertisement
Hoyacane1620 said:
Click to expand...

The whole paid for visits is ridiculous and not remotely related to NIL. Kids think NIL just means getting paid (though that's essentially what it has evolved into), but NCAA could absolutely start sanctioning schools and players for things that aren't remotely promotional type of things.
 
CreativeCane said:
Aren't scholarships essentially contracts, though? There are non-competes in contracts all the time. An NFL player who signs with a team is giving up opportunities for promotions in other cities. Just because another team COULD potentially offer a better deal doesn't dissolve the contract. It's not an absolute right regardless of what a contract says. The issue was the NCAA said the student-athletes had zero right to profit from NIL. Signing with a specific school and then missing on an opportunity elsewhere isn't a violation of that.
Click to expand...
If the argument to be is that a scholarship is a contract with a noncompete clause, then there must be some limit on the noncompete. Attorneys all the time examine and successfully whittle down excessive noncompete clauses. For example, a noncompete might be able to exclude someone from setting up shop for two years across the street but cannot stop them from setting up shop the next state over now.
 
How long until the IRS gets a whole new division based solely on NIL and the fair market value of college athletes? How long until an IRS lawyer goes after his rival schools players?
 
I mean if you think about it - virtually 100% of lawmakers have one thing in common. They graduated college. And built some measure of loyalty to college athletics along the way.

So if there was ever an issue that could bring Republicans and Democrats to the middle, rather than let it go to ruin - this would be it.
 
Back
Top