Ruiz was on WQAM talking Potential New NIL Guidelines

[TheOriginalCane]

So you are saying that he broke some rules, you’re just not certain?

Really? That's what you got out of it?

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

I agree to a certain extent. The issue is public perception. If we wage a full on war with the NCAA in public, other coaching staffs are going to pounce on this and tell kids we will be on probation in the near future. It could be handled much better, and I have to imagine Mario will let them know if they get wind of anything like this

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Really? That's what you got out of it?

That was your first sentence, your leading statement. How could I ignore that?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

That was your first sentence, your leading statement. How could I ignore that?

I don't know, maybe try reading more than one sentence? Particularly when you got the first sentence wrong?

Here, allow me to sum up the general discussion on this thread (and other threads) so far:

Smart person: If you don't want to have your **** and balls ripped off by a tree branch while you are diving from a rope swing into a river, it is a good idea to wear shorts or a swimming suit.

Loophole lover: But I'm not breaking any rules by swinging naked on a rope swing, based on the newly-enacted rope swing rules.

Smart person with intact **** and balls: Nobody has said that you have broken any rope swing rules, though there may be other pre-existing rules on public displays of nudity. You may not have broken any rope swing rules, but you may have violated some other rules. Regardless of that, I thought you might find it advisable to protect your **** and balls.

Loophole lover who thinks he is smarter than everyone: Man, fvck you, Imma let my **** and balls hang out, bro. The sheriff has never arrested anyone else on this river for letting their **** and balls hang out, and if the sheriff tries it with me, Imma sue him all the way to the Supreme Court, my guy.

Smart person with intact **** and balls and common sense: OK, regardless of any current or future rule-making on this precise subject, isn't it just a good idea to cover up your **** and balls to avoid the possibility of having them ripped off by a tree branch?

Loophole lover who things he is smarter than everyone, but isn't: You're just a hater trying to destroy my fun. I refuse to engage in any rational discussion of ****-and-ball covering that does not involve your full admission that anything-and-everything goes.

Smart person with intact **** and balls and common sense who is about to give up: Look, I don't care if you lose your **** and balls, but this impacts all of us, as some of us are going to have to jump in the water to clean up your detached **** and balls.


Riiiiiiiiippppp...

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

I don't know, maybe try reading more than one sentence? Particularly when you got the first sentence wrong?

Here, allow me to sum up the discussion so far:

Smart person: If you don't want to have your **** and balls ripped off by a tree branch while you are diving from a rope swing into a river, it is a good idea to wear shorts or a swimming suit.

Loophole lover: But I'm not breaking any rules by swinging naked on a rope swing, based on the newly-enacted rope swing rules.

Smart person with intact **** and balls: Nobody has said that you have broken any rope swing rules, though there may be other pre-existing rules on public displays of nudity. You may not have broken any rope swing rules, but you may have violated some other rules. Regardless of that, I thought you might find it advisable to protect your **** and balls.

Loophole lover who thinks he is smarter than everyone: Man, fvck you, Imma let my **** and balls hang out, bro. The sheriff has never arrested anyone else on this river for letting their **** and balls hang out, and if the sheriff tries it with me, Imma sue him all the way to the Supreme Court, my guy.

Smart person with intact **** and balls and common sense: OK, regardless of any current or future rule-making on this precise subject, isn't it just a good idea to cover up your **** and balls to avoid the possibility of having them ripped off by a tree branch?

Loophole lover who things he is smarter than everyone, but isn't: You're just a hater trying to destroy my fun. I refuse to engage in any rational discussion of ****-and-ball covering that does not involve your full admission that anything-and-everything goes.

Smart person with intact **** and balls and common sense who is about to give up: Look, I don't care if you lose your **** and balls, but this impacts all of us, as some of us are going to have to jump in the water to clean up your detached **** and balls.


Riiiiiiiiippppp...

You are really stuck on this. I guess Ruiz, his team of lawyers, and our compliance, missed what is so obvious to you.

I guess we are fūcked then according to you, and a whole team of people who spend every day doing this are completely wrong, and you have it completely right.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You are really stuck on this. I guess Ruiz, his team of lawyers, and our compliance, missed what is so obvious to you.

I guessed we are fūcked then according to you, and a whole team of people who spend every day doing this are completely wrong, and you have it completely right.

Yeah, Ruiz and his "team of lawyers", with all their years of experience in NCAA issues...good lord, let's not pretend that every lawyer is equally competent in every area of practice.

"Our compliance" does not have a problem with the NIL deals. That's what they review. I have repeatedly said that the deals themselves are not problematic. But "our compliance" has not reviewed every aspect of WHEN John Ruiz meets with recruits, and WHAT he says to recruits (unless you are alleging that someone from UM Compliance was in the room where the NIL happens).

But keep exaggerating the reasonable things that I say into unreasonable distortions. Like, yeah, I said we are "fvcked". Which, of course, I never said.

What part of actual words do you not understand? Like the words that the NCAA is saying about their intent to pass NEW and RETROACTIVE rules? Now, if you want to poo-poo that, it's on you. But why do you not think that those words constitute a potential threat that could or should be addressed by proactively changing one's behavior to a less-problematic behavior?

Here's a thought. Do you hit the brakes after the cop is behind you with flashing lights? Or do you at least give consideration to tapping the brakes when you learn of a cop up ahead via your radar detector or Waze or your own eyeballs?

You can lull yourself into believing that John Ruiz cannot possibly make a mistake or misstep or misjudgment under the currrent (and/or unenacted future retroactive) rules because "he's a lawyer", but that is no guarantee in life. Trust, but verify.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Yeah, Ruiz and his "team of lawyers", with all their years of experience in NCAA issues...good lord, let's not pretend that every lawyer is equally competent in every area of practice.

"Our compliance" does not have a problem with the NIL deals. That's what they review. I have repeatedly said that the deals themselves are not problematic. But "our compliance" has not reviewed every aspect of WHEN John Ruiz meets with recruits, and WHAT he says to recruits (unless you are alleging that someone from UM Compliance was in the room where the NIL happens).

But keep exaggerating the reasonable things that I say into unreasonable distortions. Like, yeah, I said we are "fvcked". Which, of course, I never said.

What part of actual words do you not understand? Like the words that the NCAA is saying about their intent to pass NEW and RETROACTIVE rules? Now, if you want to poo-poo that, it's on you. But why do you not think that those words constitute a potential threat that could or should be addressed by proactively changing one's behavior to a less-problematic behavior?

Here's a thought. Do you hit the brakes after the cop is behind you with flashing lights? Or do you at least give consideration to tapping the brakes when you learn of a cop up ahead via your radar detector or Waze or your own eyeballs?

You can lull yourself into believing that John Ruiz cannot possibly make a mistake or misstep or misjudgment under the currrent (and/or unenacted future retroactive) rules because "he's a lawyer", but that is no guarantee in life. Trust, but verify.

I haven’t exaggerated anything, just repeated back to you what you’ve claimed.

So from this post I am assuming that you are more knowledgeable and more competent with respect to NCAA/ NIL rules than Ruiz, his team, and our compliance department.

I didn’t realize that was your area of expertise.

I mean let’s be honest here, you’re basically saying that we’re breaking the rules.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I haven’t exaggerated anything, just repeated back to you what you’ve claimed.

So from this post I am assuming that you are more knowledgeable and more competent with respect to NCAA/ NIL rules than Ruiz, his team, and our compliance department.

I didn’t realize that was your area of expertise.

I mean let’s be honest here, you’re basically saying that we’re breaking the rules.

I give up. You're just better at reading comprehension and "summing up" than anyone else.

I understand that you don't comprehend the existential threat of making future rules that apply retroactively. Good luck with that.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

Craig Anderson is our compliance guy, He was the one that outed Grace & AQM in the exotic car thing. Plus we were one of the only schools in the Country to hire an exclusive compliance person during the Shapiro scandal. And we were one of the 1st schools in the Country to start implementing NILs with the gym owner & College Hunks. We were very prepared.

He should have been fired after outing Grace and AQM. We need a compliance guy like this guy.

 

[Canes1968]

I haven’t exaggerated anything, just repeated back to you what you’ve claimed.

So from this post I am assuming that you are more knowledgeable and more competent with respect to NCAA/ NIL rules than Ruiz, his team, and our compliance department.

I didn’t realize that was your area of expertise.

I mean let’s be honest here, you’re basically saying that we’re breaking the rules.

Stop wasting your breath. The dude you are arguing with is this site's "Mr. Know It All". He's being a chicken little and making a bunch of assumptions for which he knows nothing about. The reality is, there is zero chance the university compliance team is not fully aware of exactly how Ruiz is handling every aspect of his NIL deals, including when he initiates contact. They are not going to just assume the risk that Ruiz does something that could harm the university.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

I give up. You're just better at reading comprehension and "summing up" than anyone else.

I understand that you don't comprehend the existential threat of making future rules that apply retroactively. Good luck with that.

“… making future rules that apply retroactively”

 

[Atom Atlas]

O

Stop wasting your breath. The dude you are arguing with is this site's "Mr. Know It All". He's being a chicken little and making a bunch of assumptions for which he knows nothing about. The reality is, there is zero chance the university compliance team is not fully aware of exactly how Ruiz is handling every aspect of his NIL deals, including when he initiates contact. They are not going to just assume the risk that Ruiz does something that could harm the university.

One of the best things about this site is the ignore feature... I recently had to add a certain know it all blowhard to that list ... Sometimes enough is enough...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

“… making future rules that apply retroactively”

Just let me know which words you don't understand, and we'll try to get you some assistance...

On3

@On3sports

BREAKING: New NIL guidelines will be retroactive, per
@RossDellenger
. Schools with boosters who have communicated with players before they have signed with programs would be sanctioned. Guidelines are expected to be published next week. More HERE: https://on3.com/nil/news/college-leaders-proposing-retroactive-nil-punishments-calling-ncaa-enforce-new-rules-or-else-recruiting-violations-guidelines/…




9:29 PM · May 5, 2022·TweetDeck

453
Retweets
491
Quote Tweets
1,472
Likes

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Just let me know which words you don't understand, and we'll try to get you some assistance...

On3
@On3sports

BREAKING: New NIL guidelines will be retroactive, per
@RossDellenger
. Schools with boosters who have communicated with players before they have signed with programs would be sanctioned. Guidelines are expected to be published next week. More HERE: https://on3.com/nil/news/college-leaders-proposing-retroactive-nil-punishments-calling-ncaa-enforce-new-rules-or-else-recruiting-violations-guidelines/…


9:29 PM · May 5, 2022·TweetDeck

453
Retweets
491
Quote Tweets
1,472
Likes

I am aware of what’s been claimed …. Just wanted to repeat that phrase, we’ll see how that holds up.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

He should have been fired after outing Grace and AQM. We need a compliance guy like this guy.

LOL, yeah, I was ****ed off at the time when I found out Anderson was the one that outed them. I'm more speaking about the present in case the NCAA tries some ****.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I am aware of what’s been claimed …. Just wanted to repeat that phrase, we’ll see how that holds up.

I can agree with you on this point. The phrase, whether it remains a threat or it becomes reality, is outrageous on its face.

But I don't blow it off either. If it happens, it will happen because 85-90% of the NCAA member institutions are reeeeeally ****ed at the other 10-15%, and they will stop caring about due process or fairness for a few years.

 

[JamesQuall]

I respectfully disagree that cocaine built this town. It was huge pre-cocaine and only miami beach was retirees.

The weather, tourism, and beaches--- coupled with our taxes, made S. Florida what it is and what it would have always become.

"We didn't start the fire, it was always burning."

I Agree, location sells real estate and attracts money. However, if the fire was already burning; the cocaine money was like throwing gasoline-covered pallets on the fire and then pouring napalm on it. That made a lot of people invest a lot of money to buy real estate and start businesses to wash the money.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

I can agree with you on this point. The phrase, whether it remains a threat or it becomes reality, is outrageous on its face.

But I don't blow it off either. If it happens, it will happen because 85-90% of the NCAA member institutions are reeeeeally ****ed at the other 10-15%, and they will stop caring about due process or fairness for a few years.

That's why Florida needs to craft legislation protecting athletic departments from the NCAA. In the future, if any of their proceedings move forward as though a presumption of guilt were there, that would be a violation of due process and a violation of this law. Because as it is now, the NCAA has more power than the Governor Of Florida & the POTUS.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

That's why Florida needs to craft legislation protecting athletic departments from the NCAA. In the future, if any of their proceedings move forward as through a presumption of guilt were there, that would be a violation of due process and a violation of this law. Because as it is now, the NCAA has more power than the Governor Of Florida & the POTUS.

I mean...you're not wrong...

But the other 49 states could pass the same laws too, in theory. I just haven't seen any state try to beef up the due process requirements of the NCAA.

That's why, even though it seems like an argument, I'm trying to converse with OCCC to say that the NCAA still has teeth. Let's not be lulled into ignoring the NCAA and its inherent power. I don't know what the ultimate outcome will be, and I've said that repeatedly, but I think we should still be careful.

 

[NCCanefan]

I am not saying WITH CERTAINTY that Ruiz has broken any existing NCAA rules.

A. He may have broken RETROACTIVELY-APPLIED rules that have not even been made yet.
B. He (and players) may be INVESTIGATED for breaking both existing and "future" rules, which is still a big hassle, regardless of outcome.

Again, I'm not sure how explicitly I need to make this (not for you personally, just generally).

Prior to NIL rules, we have ALWAYS had rules that say boosters cannot personally contact the recruits, or offer anything of value, during the recruiting. No inducements. No promises. Etc.

It is inarguable that both HS and Portal recruits have had meetings with John Ruiz prior to the announcement of a UM commit and/or the signing of an LOI with UM. And regardless of those who want to get cute as to whether Ruiz is a booster...he's a booster.

Without having all of the evidence, I am not stating with any sort of certainty that EXISTING booster/contact/recruiting rules have been violated. But it's possible. And more importantly, if the NCAA and member institutions have that opinion, they can investigate. They can legislate. They can make life miserable, even if the ultimate outcome goes our way. In a few years. Remember how "the cloud" worked?

But I'm also pointing out that the PERCEPTION of wrongdoing can lead the NCAA to craft NEW rules, and if they apply them RETROACTIVELY, then it is possible that something that is NOT a violation of the rules today could BECOME a violation of the rules in the future.

AND I DON'T THINK IT IS WORTH THE TROUBLE TO POKE THE NCAA BEAR ON THIS.

I've provided what I believe are very prudent guidelines for how John Ruiz could eliminate his name and presence from the discussion of new rules to curb "booster/recruiting/contact" abuses. To be more like "Dr. Pepper" and less like "Flaccid Spear". I'm not sure why some posters constantly want to fight about it, and act like it's somehow John Ruiz's combination birthright/Constitutional right to do anything he wants in the NIL arena. Yes, there has been some uncertainty and lack of clarity on what the rules are or what they could be. But that doesn't mean you have to wait until you're in trouble to adopt some best corporate practices.

Anyone could all be guilty of a future rule applied retroactively. Would love to see that court case. Young kid earning $ under a lawful contract, some power hungry organization changes their rules and attempts to apply the new rules to an existing agreement. I can tell you which side of the case I'd like to be on.