forums

Ruiz was on WQAM talking Potential New NIL Guidelines

TheOriginalCane said:
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.
Click to expand...

wow we agree on something, I don't believe Ruiz issue will be whether the deals are non compliant but whether they were agreed upon prior to signing with a school or committing to a school (I think thats what the NCAA is focusing on).
 
Advertisement
NCCanefan said:
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.
Click to expand...
The issue is play for pay. That has ALWAYS been a major violation of NCAA regulations. What the NCAA is alluding to I believe is simply APPLYING that prohibited activity (paying a player to commit to a program) to the NIL contracts. NIL agreements ARE SUPPOSED TO BE for players that are committed to a program. NIL deals are NOT supposed to be THE ENTICEMENT FOR a player to SIGN with a program. The NCAA is saying that if the NIL agreement was put into a players hands PRIOR to the player committing to a program, that it can / will be interpreted as and inducement to sign and the programs involved will be sanctioned. The burden of proof is on them regarding contact timelines.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
He should have been fired after outing Grace and AQM. We need a compliance guy like this guy.
Roy_Cohn.jpg
Click to expand...



So your solution is to put up a picture of a scumbag who was disbarred for defrauding and stealing from his clients, and who was a closeted *** man who built part of his career on persecuting and prosecuting other *** men (when some of the French assisted the Germans during WWII, they were called "collaborators"). The only reason he wasn't sent to jail is because he died of AIDS before he could be convicted and sentenced.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
So your solution is to put up a picture of a scumbag who was disbarred for defrauding and stealing from his clients, and who was a closeted *** man who built part of his career on persecuting and prosecuting other *** men (when some of the French assisted the Germans during WWII, they were called "collaborators"). The only reason he wasn't sent to jail is because he died of AIDS before he could be convicted and sentenced.
Click to expand...
It was sarcasm.
 
NCCanefan said:
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.
Click to expand...


Agreed. And that was kind of my point. And it would be years before "a court case" could ever hope to reverse what the NCAA does in the meantime.

That's all. Ruiz could steal the NCAA's ammo by just letting LifeWallet do all the things he has done for the past year.
 
Advertisement
hoops156 said:
wow we agree on something, I don't believe Ruiz issue will be whether the deals are non compliant but whether they were agreed upon prior to signing with a school or committing to a school (I think thats what the NCAA is focusing on).
Click to expand...


Rare though it may be, we can agree on this. I think the deals-on-paper are fine. I have concerns with timing and personal involvement. I'm not mad, I'm not blaming anyone, but I do think we need to be careful and start handling ourselves differently. That's not a criticism.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
They know retroactive punishment is impossible. This is just a scare tactic until they can figure out how to regain control.
Click to expand...


You know what else was supposed to be impossible? Convincing an attorney in an unrelated civil case to turn over all of her documents to the NCAA (as the NCAA lacked subpoena power).

Yet it happened.

And, yes, we prevailed in the end.

I don't think this is a scare tactic. And I don't think the NCAA will fully prevail in the end. But in order for it to get to the Supreme Court, there needs to be a case and controversy.

So the NCAA is going to try to ***** us (and others). And the NCAA is hoping to prevail in court. I think the former is more likely than the latter.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You know what else was supposed to be impossible? Convincing an attorney in an unrelated civil case to turn over all of her documents to the NCAA (as the NCAA lacked subpoena power).

Yet it happened.

And, yes, we prevailed in the end.

I don't think this is a scare tactic. And I don't think the NCAA will fully prevail in the end. But in order for it to get to the Supreme Court, there needs to be a case and controversy.

So the NCAA is going to try to ***** us (and others). And the NCAA is hoping to prevail in court. I think the former is more likely than the latter.
Click to expand...

I do like that several of these attorneys/agents have said they are ready to slap a lawsuit on the NCAA the second they mess with their clients. What I don't know is whether or not they will only care about their clients and not the schools themselves. It seems the NCAA will only go after schools and not the kids
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You know what else was supposed to be impossible? Convincing an attorney in an unrelated civil case to turn over all of her documents to the NCAA (as the NCAA lacked subpoena power).

Yet it happened.

And, yes, we prevailed in the end.

I don't think this is a scare tactic. And I don't think the NCAA will fully prevail in the end. But in order for it to get to the Supreme Court, there needs to be a case and controversy.

So the NCAA is going to try to ***** us (and others). And the NCAA is hoping to prevail in court. I think the former is more likely than the latter.
Click to expand...
Possible, but I think they see how impotent they are and won't really do more than rattle their sabers because getting beaten in the Supreme Court by us after the whole Shapiro business would give us plenty of ammo to suggest this is targeted harassment.
 
JD08 said:
Possible, but I think they see how impotent they are and won't really do more than rattle their sabers because getting beaten in the Supreme Court by us after the whole Shapiro business would give us plenty of ammo to suggest this is targeted harassment.
Click to expand...


Again, it's gonna take years to get to the Supreme Court. You need an actual federal court case. You need an appellate decision. And you would need to get the votes for cert. I realize that Brett "Well-Known Champion of the Common Man and a Judge Who Always Fights For Workers to be Paid a Fair Wage" Kavanagh will vote for cert, but I'm not sure that anyone else would ON A CASE INVOLVING BOOSTERS AND RECRUITING.

The NCAA has already accepted NIL. This would not be a case on the LEGALITY of NIL. It would be a case on "can we limit NIL deals during the pre-enrollment recruiting months". And I honestly believe that the NCAA would win on that basis, as they have been regulating recruiting, boosters, and illicit contact FOR DECADES and the Supreme Court has not had an issue with that.
 
Advertisement
Shogungts said:
He may be doing things within the rules, but the intent was not a scenario like announcing a basketball player that almost no one in Miami has ever heard of getting a $400K deal per year at the same time his commitment announced. The intent was that players could do some commercials, sign autographs, get some jersey sales, etc.

I am glad that Miami is the benefactor of this and understand/trust that he is following the rules - and for sure his companies are getting some publicity out of this - but this was certainly not what the intent of NIL was.
Click to expand...

The players he hires do commercials and promotion for LifeWallet. That's exactly what NIL intent was for....
 
mirvin88 said:
The players he hires do commercials and promotion for LifeWallet. That's exactly what NIL intent was for....
Click to expand...
The intent was not that players who haven't been announced as being part of the team and most people have never even heard of getting large NIL deals from a prominent booster of that school.

Again, I am not saying that he is breaking the rules (I don't think he is), but certainly this is not what the NCAA intended when they put out the NIL rules.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

I wonder what kind of illegal, deceptive tactics that they used to get to get documents that were supposed to be attorney-client privilege? Once upon a time, one of their investigators actually misrepresented himself as a Federal agent, to get bank records from a banking exec to show that 3 athletes flew on another bank exec's private jet for free..can't make this **** up even if I tried.
 
CaneSince4Ever said:
I wonder what kind of illegal, deceptive tactics that they used to get to get documents that were supposed to be attorney-client privilege? Once upon a time, one of their investigators actually misrepresented himself as a Federal agent, to get bank records from a banking exec to show that 3 athletes flew on another bank exec's private jet for free..can't make this **** up even if I tried.
Click to expand...


In the UM case, I don't think they used any deceptive tactics, though the request itself was not legal. I think that dumb-a$$ attorney just gave them the info when the NCAA asked for it.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top