Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

According to Gerry, Jordan Anderson the mystery WR that Wells talked about yesterday is the one who initiated the contact back with us and is working to setup an OV this fall. 

This recruitment has no impact with Wingo or that recruitment. 

[Gut Wagon 8219]

32 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

According to Gerry, Jordan Anderson the mystery WR that Wells talked about yesterday is the one who initiated the contact back with us and is working to setup an OV this fall. 

This recruitment has no impact with Wingo or that recruitment. 

Guy evidently is pretty good. Let's go ahead and get him. 
 

https://www.si.com/college/oregon/recruiting/oregon-commit-jordan-anderson-named-alpha-dog-by-247sports-at-ot7-austin

[crash_davis 23470]

2 hours ago, Yesh said:

Regarding Wingo and the Missouri NIL law, the supposed benefit is that he can make NIL money in high school if he is committed to an in state school.  Specifically, unless I am misunderstanding, he needs to sign a grant in aid to be eligible.  But a grant in aid doesn't tie the kid to the school, just the school to the kid, and you can sign them with multiple schools.

 

So what is to stop him from committing to Mizzou and signing the grant in aid, getting the NIL money, and then enrolling somewhere else in January?  Is there really a MIzzou collective that is willing to pay a high school kid without any guarantee he signs there?

Mizzou isn't stupid. They are going to state in the contract that the recruit cannot commit to another school and if he decommits, he must pay back the money.

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Mizzou isn't stupid. They are going to state in the contract that the recruit cannot commit to another school and if he decommits, he must pay back the money.

I am pretty sure that is not legal even under their law

[crash_davis 23470]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I am pretty sure that is not legal even under their law

It's a civil contract between 2 parties. If they both sign, that contact is legal.

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

Just now, crash_davis said:

It's a civil contract between 2 parties. If they both sign, that contact is legal.

NIL cannot tie a kid to a school and vice versa

[crash_davis 23470]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

NIL cannot tie a kid to a school and vice versa

You're right. It will be between the NIL sponsor/payer and recruit. 

[BadgerHorn 147]

Are they putting decommit penalties in addition to repayment in NIL contracts?  If you just have to pay the money back after a decommit with no penalty, then why not get the money several months early and use your next (presumably larger) NIL deal to pay whatever delta you spent?  Not the highest integrity move if you're using a university/sponsor knowing you're eventually going somewhere else, but the decision to turn this into a business has been made.

[irishtexan 11712]

10 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

You're right. It will be between the NIL sponsor/payer and recruit. 

Also not legal under current NIL. That being said, I'm sure there are ways around it. 

[SameSame 1752]

So it's not legal, unless it is. The legality subverts the legalness.

[Ricky's one-hitter 9622]

I would be a proponent of tying NIL payouts to LOI, even if that allows LOIs to be signed ad hoc. Payouts before signing puts the prospect in a really weird position. There are plenty of reasons to decommit between 9/1 and 12/20, even if they committed with the intention of shutting it down. These are teenagers. 

[Gene Parmesan 4082]

1 hour ago, irishtexan said:

Also not legal under current NIL. That being said, I'm sure there are ways around it. 

Don't they write in appearance requirements?  While not tied to the school, you aren't going to show up a Columbus, MO Ford, if you are going to school in Austin.

[SydneyCarton 49534]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

Mizzou isn't stupid. They are going to state in the contract that the recruit cannot commit to another school and if he decommits, he must pay back the money.

 

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I am pretty sure that is not legal even under their law

I'm no attorney, so who knows what ends up being possible, but this is illegal period. Why you ask? NLI is basically profitting off of the Name, Image, and Likeness. That means it is promotional in nature. Marketing, advertising, etc. Having to pay back money for services rendered, by it's very nature I would think, would be a pretty clear indicator of inducement. Are you saying that the Ad I did for your car lot that aired for 3 months was no longer a valud advertisement using my image for those 3 months for which you paid me? That's inducement, and that is  legal. 

And Missouri is a Right To Work State. Further complications if homeboy is trying to go work in another Right To Work State, like say Texas. 

Anything can be written into a contract, sure, and both parties have to sign, that being said...man...I don't know how that doesn't appear to be obvious inducement. There's a reason no Texas recruits signs a contract or even discusses one until they are already fucking enrolled. Can't think Missouri would want to have any of these cases start going through the court system. 

[Professor Chesney 692]

1 hour ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Don't they write in appearance requirements?  While not tied to the school, you aren't going to show up a Columbus, MO Ford, if you are going to school in Austin.

Without having seen an NIL contract, this is most likely the only structure that could plausibly work:  down payment at the time of commitment with obligations to make physical appearances in Columbia that coincide with enrollment dates and milestones in the first year that would be impractical to fulfill if the player isn’t a student.  If the player cannot or will not make those appearances, all or a portion of the down payment would be repaid.  
 

Even this is still a flimsy foundation because  as others have mentioned, anything tied to enrollment or on field performance is inducement and against current NIL rules.  This would land the actual university in hot water.  Regardless of what the legislature implemented, I don’t think Mizzou would want to see where that path leads.

48 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

And Missouri is a Right To Work State. Further complications if homeboy is trying to go work in another Right To Work State, like say Texas. 

This is also important.  Two parties can put anything on paper, but some things just aren’t going to be enforceable.

And yes, nothing would stop a player from switching schools and using new NIL money to pay off any existing contractual obligations.  It seems like Mizzou is banking on inertia; that once a player and their family is paid and settled in to the idea of attending in the winter, they won’t want to go through the hassle of changing schools and having to pay anything back.

Caveat that this is all spitballing and conjecture.  Would be curious to look at these contracts to see how they’re structured.

EDIT:  And this assumes that everyone is behaving in good faith.  I’m sure these Missouri lawyers and boosters would never imply faulty legal conclusions or make official-sounding threats.  If there is one thing you can say about lawyers, you can say that they don’t push frivolous arguments. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Professor Chesney
Added clarity

[Hornlover 8947]

I wonder if there's an angle, in which they do the "My Agent is giving me a stipend/loan that's just an advance on future earnings"  bit? 

In cases like those, the agent has a really strong incentive to not fuck over the school if they want to be involved in future deals. So the leverage over the player comes from the agent.

And agents can assuredly put language in their contracts that any and all advances/loans must be repaid if certain conditions are not met. It happens already with players preparing for the NFL draft.

[DaysOff 8222]

We probably need more attorneys on this board.

[Hornius Emeritus 12812]

Just now, DaysOff said:

We probably need more attorneys on this board.

I have been wondering if the same laws apply in Charleston and whether they would be mitigated if the perp was eating a good chicken fried steak.

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I have been wondering if the same laws apply in Charleston and whether they would be mitigated if the perp was eating a good chicken fried steak.

Your alibi says you were at the 1999 NC State game.

[SydneyCarton 49534]

45 minutes ago, Professor Chesney said:

 

 

EDIT:  And this assumes that everyone is behaving in good faith.  I’m sure these Missouri lawyers and boosters would never imply faulty legal conclusions or make official-sounding threats.  If there is one thing you can say about lawyers, you can say that they don’t push frivolous arguments. 

This is sarcasm, right? Just to be clear 

[Michael Knight 13239]

3 hours ago, crash_davis said:

Mizzou isn't stupid.

[linux 1787]

5 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Nothing

1. (1) No compensation to a student athlete for earning or attempting to earn compensation from the use of such student athlete's name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation shall be conditioned on such student athlete's athletic performance. Those providing compensation to a student athlete for the use of his or her name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation shall have the right to condition payment of that compensation on a student athlete's attendance at a particular postsecondary educational institution.

It is 100% a pay for play law

Presumably he can pay them back and flip, as I said on my first post it is not indentured servitude, maybe pay interest on the payment but more than that it runs afoul of other laws, and Missouri's NLI totals is way less than both UTs so that is why I see it likely, it is just a prediction though.

Assuming perfectly rational actors and he flips at the last moment:
He wins by getting money early, Mizzou wins by fabricating recruiting momentum, but at the end of the day they are a poor program and nothing real has changed. 

[texifornia 59065]

[DanTheHorn 5092]

28 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

We probably need more attorneys on this board.

Ready to contribute

Edited August 17, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[Radical Larry 28826]

3 minutes ago, texifornia said:

Sir, this is the NIL discussion thread. Actual recruiting news is now posted on the Austin Pizza thread. 

[Keef 892]

1 hour ago, Professor Chesney said:

Without having seen an NIL contract, this is most likely the only structure that could plausibly work:  down payment at the time of commitment with obligations to make physical appearances in Columbia that coincide with enrollment dates and milestones in the first year that would be impractical to fulfill if the player isn’t a student.  If the player cannot or will not make those appearances, all or a portion of the down payment would be repaid.  
 

Even this is still a flimsy foundation because  as others have mentioned, anything tied to enrollment or on field performance is inducement and against current NIL rules.  This would land the actual university in hot water.  Regardless of what the legislature implemented, I don’t think Mizzou would want to see where that path leads.

This is also important.  Two parties can put anything on paper, but some things just aren’t going to be enforceable.

And yes, nothing would stop a player from switching schools and using new NIL money to pay off any existing contractual obligations.  It seems like Mizzou is banking on inertia; that once a player and their family is paid and settled in to the idea of attending in the winter, they won’t want to go through the hassle of changing schools and having to pay anything back.

Caveat that this is all spitballing and conjecture.  Would be curious to look at these contracts to see how they’re structured.

EDIT:  And this assumes that everyone is behaving in good faith.  I’m sure these Missouri lawyers and boosters would never imply faulty legal conclusions or make official-sounding threats.  If there is one thing you can say about lawyers, you can say that they don’t push frivolous arguments. 

Are we getting the dean of the UT law school to weigh in on our NIL contracts?  Lol awesome.

[NoName 17187]

18 minutes ago, texifornia said:

LSU pushed him to commit early...then he committed elsewhere?

if that's the case, Brian Kelly has already reached Peak Tom Herman

[Chili dog 1810]

1 hour ago, Professor Chesney said:

Without having seen an NIL contract, this is most likely the only structure that could plausibly work:  down payment at the time of commitment with obligations to make physical appearances in Columbia that coincide with enrollment dates and milestones in the first year that would be impractical to fulfill if the player isn’t a student.  If the player cannot or will not make those appearances, all or a portion of the down payment would be repaid.  
 

Even this is still a flimsy foundation because  as others have mentioned, anything tied to enrollment or on field performance is inducement and against current NIL rules.  This would land the actual university in hot water.  Regardless of what the legislature implemented, I don’t think Mizzou would want to see where that path leads.

This is also important.  Two parties can put anything on paper, but some things just aren’t going to be enforceable.

And yes, nothing would stop a player from switching schools and using new NIL money to pay off any existing contractual obligations.  It seems like Mizzou is banking on inertia; that once a player and their family is paid and settled in to the idea of attending in the winter, they won’t want to go through the hassle of changing schools and having to pay anything back.

Caveat that this is all spitballing and conjecture.  Would be curious to look at these contracts to see how they’re structured.

EDIT:  And this assumes that everyone is behaving in good faith.  I’m sure these Missouri lawyers and boosters would never imply faulty legal conclusions or make official-sounding threats.  If there is one thing you can say about lawyers, you can say that they don’t push frivolous arguments. 

Does the age of the party impact enforceability in these contracts? Let’s just say I know people who have a ton of Columbia House invoices from their middle school years that never got paid. 

[tejas60 3575]

42 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Ready to contribute

what kinda lawyer stays at La Quinta? sheeeesh!

[Park Gothic 5376]

8 minutes ago, tejas60 said:

what kinda lawyer stays at La Quinta? sheeeesh!

Bad lawyers who work on contingency. Don't ask me how I know. 

[Professor Chesney 692]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

This is sarcasm, right? Just to be clear 

Yes.  Unless we can bill for it, then no. (Will keep NIL talk in the NIL thread in the future).  

On actual recruiting, IT seems to be entertaining Jordan Ross talk with “Texas would take his commitment”, as if that was ever in doubt.  We don’t actually have a shot here and they are just driving clicks, correct?  He also projects to the same position as Simmons so seems like that would be a weird pickup.

[Bodacious Bevo 3691]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

I'm no attorney, so who knows what ends up being possible, but this is illegal period. Why you ask? NLI is basically profitting off of the Name, Image, and Likeness. That means it is promotional in nature. Marketing, advertising, etc. Having to pay back money for services rendered, by it's very nature I would think, would be a pretty clear indicator of inducement. Are you saying that the Ad I did for your car lot that aired for 3 months was no longer a valud advertisement using my image for those 3 months for which you paid me? That's inducement, and that is  legal. 

And Missouri is a Right To Work State. Further complications if homeboy is trying to go work in another Right To Work State, like say Texas. 

Anything can be written into a contract, sure, and both parties have to sign, that being said...man...I don't know how that doesn't appear to be obvious inducement. There's a reason no Texas recruits signs a contract or even discusses one until they are already fucking enrolled. Can't think Missouri would want to have any of these cases start going through the court system. 

 

44 minutes ago, linux said:

1. (1) No compensation to a student athlete for earning or attempting to earn compensation from the use of such student athlete's name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation shall be conditioned on such student athlete's athletic performance. Those providing compensation to a student athlete for the use of his or her name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation shall have the right to condition payment of that compensation on a student athlete's attendance at a particular postsecondary educational institution.

It is 100% a pay for play law

Presumably he can pay them back and flip, as I said on my first post it is not indentured servitude, maybe pay interest on the payment but more than that it runs afoul of other laws, and Missouri's NLI totals is way less than both UTs so that is why I see it likely, it is just a prediction though.

Assuming perfectly rational actors and he flips at the last moment:
He wins by getting money early, Mizzou wins by fabricating recruiting momentum, but at the end of the day they are a poor program and nothing real has changed. 

Yeah, part of the confusion here is that we're using our Texas NIL understanding for a different state. The Missouri legislature is very open about the purpose of the law being to help Mizzou and other Missouri universities (are there others?) in recruiting. Inducements are illegal in Texas but that doesn't matter in Missouri. Linux already posted the text about it. I guess it might go against whatever the current NCAA rules or guidelines are but that doesn't seem like it matters. There are a couple clauses that I think specifically exempt both collectives and athletes from NCAA and conference rules. 

Here's the relevant portion for high schoolers.

Altogether, the intent of the bill reads to me that a recruit can start earning money as soon as they sign a written agreement that they will enroll in a Missouri college or university. Right now, we conceptualize that as meaning letter of intent or financial aid agreement because that is what exists through the NCAA. But I think the bill opens up a legal course to sign a new type contract between only the athlete and the paying party in which the athlete agrees to enroll at a Missouri university and earns money contingent upon that enrollment. 

The 8/28 start date (might be misremembering the exact date) only matters this cycle because that's when the law starts. I imagine this will be a bigger advantage in the future because I think they'll be able to start paying HS athletes anytime they want. So that couple months of a head start could end up being 4 years if they think a kid is good enough. 

Here's the bill. Relevant portion starts on page 8: https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/hlrbillspdf/1211S.10T.pdf

 

[SydneyCarton 49534]

1 minute ago, Professor Chesney said:

Yes.  Unless we can bill for it, then no. (Will keep NIL talk in the NIL thread in the future).  

On actual recruiting, IT seems to be entertaining Jordan Ross talk with “Texas would take his commitment”, as if that was ever in doubt.  We don’t actually have a shot here and they are just driving clicks, correct?  He also projects to the same position as Simmons so seems like that would be a weird pickup.

We want multiple Edge's in this class, but yeah, I don't think we have a shot. I'm basing this solely on the fact he's really highly fucking ranked and we've never heard his named mentioend all cycle before now, more or less. 

[Bevo 13926]

3 minutes ago, Professor Chesney said:

Yes.  Unless we can bill for it, then no. (Will keep NIL talk in the NIL thread in the future).  

On actual recruiting, IT seems to be entertaining Jordan Ross talk with “Texas would take his commitment”, as if that was ever in doubt.  We don’t actually have a shot here and they are just driving clicks, correct?  He also projects to the same position as Simmons so seems like that would be a weird pickup.

correct

[SydneyCarton 49534]

Just now, Bodacious Bevo said:

 

Yeah, part of the confusion here is that we're using our Texas NIL understanding for a different state. The Missouri legislature is very open about the purpose of the law being to help Mizzou and other Missouri universities (are there others?) in recruiting. Inducements are illegal in Texas but that doesn't matter in Missouri. Linux already posted the text about it. I guess it might go against whatever the current NCAA rules or guidelines are but that doesn't seem like it matters. There are a couple clauses that I think specifically exempt both collectives and athletes from NCAA and conference rules. 

Here's the relevant portion for high schoolers.

Altogether, the intent of the bill reads to me that a recruit can start earning money as soon as they sign a written agreement that they will enroll in a Missouri college or university. Right now, we conceptualize that as meaning letter of intent or financial aid agreement because that is what exists through the NCAA. But I think the bill opens up a legal course to sign a new type contract between only the athlete and the paying party in which the athlete agrees to enroll at a Missouri university and earns money contingent upon that enrollment. 

The 8/28 start date (might be misremembering the exact date) only matters this cycle because that's when the law starts. I imagine this will be a bigger advantage in the future because I think they'll be able to start paying HS athletes anytime they want. So that couple months of a head start could end up being 4 years if they think a kid is good enough. 

Here's the bill. Relevant portion starts on page 8: https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/hlrbillspdf/1211S.10T.pdf

 

Yes. I was referring to the NCAA guidelines, that there can be no inducement. And the only reason it doesn't "seem to matter" right now is that no one has really, really challenged it. But I'm guessing the second they try to ramrod a kid over it, it will get challenged. 

[Bodacious Bevo 3691]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yes. I was referring to the NCAA guidelines, that there can be no inducement. And the only reason it doesn't "seem to matter" right now is that no one has really, really challenged it. But I'm guessing the second they try to ramrod a kid over it, it will get challenged. 

Makes sense. I have no idea how it will play out once those challenges actually come. I'm actually really interested to see how these challenges start popping up. 

One weird thing about the bill is they make it all about a student attending the school, not participating on the team like the Texas NIL bill. So to your point, if a kid is a highly ranked sophomore so they lock him up in a contract, but then he falls down the rankings or gets injured and enrolls as a normal student, there's going to be some unhappy folks. 

[Bodacious Bevo 3691]

FWIW, as someone studying public administration and policy, I think the best way forward with NIL is through interstate compacts or uniform state laws. Interstate compacts are the most legally binding form of cooperation between states. It's basically a contract between states in which they agree to work together on an issue. It be a common set of laws that each state must follow or the compact forms a governing body (agency or commission) that governs the issue between the states. The states cannot unilaterally decide to leave the compact. Uniform state laws allow states to opt in to a set of uniform standards. 

A compact would be ideal but it might be too hard to bring a state like Missouri on board. The dynamics around inducements are different in states with a single university compared to those that have competing interests for recruits. 

[HtownHorn 15231]

1 hour ago, NoName said:

LSU pushed him to commit early...then he committed elsewhere?

if that's the case, Brian Kelly has already reached Peak Tom Herman

Gerry was saying in early July that Simmons was not going to last into the season. Embody doesn't know shit other than the egg all over his face. He really hasn't gotten a single thing right on the Mack, Simmons, and McKinley recruitments.

[Rholl 220]

On Jordan Ross, I believe im just parroting someone upthread…. but just get Tennessee to raise their NIL for Ross enough to take them out on Wingo.   Then deal with Mizzo 1 on 1.   Hopefully

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

14 minutes ago, Bodacious Bevo said:

FWIW, as someone studying public administration and policy, I think the best way forward with NIL is through interstate compacts or uniform state laws. Interstate compacts are the most legally binding form of cooperation between states. It's basically a contract between states in which they agree to work together on an issue. It be a common set of laws that each state must follow or the compact forms a governing body (agency or commission) that governs the issue between the states. The states cannot unilaterally decide to leave the compact. Uniform state laws allow states to opt in to a set of uniform standards. 

A compact would be ideal but it might be too hard to bring a state like Missouri on board. The dynamics around inducements are different in states with a single university compared to those that have competing interests for recruits. 

The problem with a compact, imo, is that it essentially requires states where the issue is more important or where more resources can be brought to bear to give up those advantages. It’s asking them to shackle themselves without necessarily the kind of upside that might be present in a more typical trade scenario. That seems pretty unlikely short of the entire sport — and this is mostly about football pretty much everywhere — being at risk.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Doc Daneeka

[closetojumping 65538]

Fuck every single one of you dipshits insisting on discussing the intricacies of NIL on the fucking 2024 thread when there is a good NIL thread for that boring shit elsewhere. All negged on this page. Hopefully others will follow suit. 

[Bevo14 8470]

2 hours ago, NoName said:

LSU pushed him to commit early...then he committed elsewhere?

if that's the case, Brian Kelly has already reached Peak Tom Herman

He's an even bigger asshole. I'm surprised LSU  is even recruiting as well as they are.

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

… ugh. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Doc Daneeka

[Doc Daneeka 6793]

10 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Fuck every single one of you dipshits insisting on discussing the intricacies of NIL on the fucking 2024 thread when there is a good NIL thread for that boring shit elsewhere. All negged on this page. Hopefully others will follow suit. 

Hell, doesn’t look like it can be deleted so maybe get someone who has the power to delete the intrusions into the crazy mid-August recruiting news to do so. 

[Getafix 29461]

 

Sonny Shipp (LSU 247), on Blake Ivy.  

 

Don't think we're a real contender - at least not yet - but it seems to be becoming a two-horse race ... should at least cause some Sturm und Drang in Collieville.

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Getafix

[Leanderman 2375]

"We probably need more attorneys on this board"

[BornAndRaised 12895]

I hate posting aggregate content, but it appears Vogel is reporting Bussey is trying to get back to Austin for another UOV prior to September 28th.

Also will be in Tuscaloosa on his Bama official for the Texas game. Should leave a good impression when we walk out of there with a W.

https://hookemheadlines.com/2023/08/17/texas-football-5-star-ath-terry-bussey-planning-visit-commitment/

Edited August 17, 2023 by BornAndRaised

[billfromlaketravis 11869]

LSU mods working their subs like a TexAgs/Parsons Mounted Cavalry rented mule. 
 

- Selling false hope on Ivey when there’s nothing there. 
- Making up bullshit and shoulder shrugging on McKniely to keep their subs engaged until September. 

- Discounting Texas at every opportunity while blaming NIL for every single one of their problems. 
- Shipp told his subs that Mack would be at the pool party right up until Wardell rolled up at the UF facility.

- Bayou Splash Fauxmentum!!!!

- And oh yeah that whole Colin Simmons thing.

Edited August 17, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[Getafix 29461]

 

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 42012]

29 minutes ago, BornAndRaised said:

I hate posting aggregate content, but it appears Vogel is reporting Bussey is trying to get back to Austin for another UOV prior to September 28th.

Also will be in Tuscaloosa on his Bama official for the Texas game. Should leave a good impression when we walk out of there with a W.

https://hookemheadlines.com/2023/08/17/texas-football-5-star-ath-terry-bussey-planning-visit-commitment/

Ivey to LSU and a surprise Bussey to us would be the meltdown of the century on the Aggie forums 

[Pato del Muerto 53603]

Seeing @closetojumping’s one man neg crusade on the last page was highly entertaining.  Less sure about its efficacy, but the effort is appreciated.