Jump to content

So excited to go to the SEC with these Tennessee assholes


Recommended Posts

Posted

He'll get his bag somewhere. There will always be a desparate program out there with some money (cough, aggy, cough). 

This is also the first I've seen that the SEC has a rule that inter-conference transfers have to sit a year? There's no way that's enforceable. If the NCAA can't do it why would a conference?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He'll get his bag somewhere. There will always be a desparate program out there with some money (cough, aggy, cough). 

This is also the first I've seen that the SEC has a rule that inter-conference transfers have to sit a year? There's no way that's enforceable. If the NCAA can't do it why would a conference?

Spring entrants only. And, no idea if it’s ever been challenged or would hold up if it were.

Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

He'll get his bag somewhere. There will always be a desparate program out there with some money (cough, aggy, cough). 

This is also the first I've seen that the SEC has a rule that inter-conference transfers have to sit a year? There's no way that's enforceable. If the NCAA can't do it why would a conference?

Not a lawyer , plenty on here to confirm or reject the following,  however,   this is how I've heard it explained:   

In general,  the anti-trust angle applies to a whole market not individual participants. (companies can have different employee rules in the same market).  In this case,  it's the whole market (NCAA football) vs. a specific entity within the market (SEC football).  The SEC or any other conference can have whatever rules it wants under the NCAA framework of members including rules on academic eligibility, transfer, uniforms etc.  If the SEC were deemed a market,  then rules such as above eligibility could be deemed anti-trust and damaging to the consumers of the market.   I think the court argument would be the market percentage test on the SEC side (low % of total market and thus rules are non-impacting) vs the market power test by plantiff (SEC has high market power and is using that power to constrain market)  

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
51 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He'll get his bag somewhere. There will always be a desparate program out there with some money (cough, aggy, cough). 

This is also the first I've seen that the SEC has a rule that inter-conference transfers have to sit a year? There's no way that's enforceable. If the NCAA can't do it why would a conference?

My initial guess is that if an SEC team wanted to sign a player and the player was able to challenge the rule in court, the player would win.  However, unlike with most of the NCAA rules that players are challenging, no SEC school is likely to be willing to try to sign a player and piss off the SEC and thus no player has standing to challenge the rule.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It's the best of both worlds when you can snipe the rosters of the rest of college football while not having to worry about the teams who know your depth chart best doing the same thing to you.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

My initial guess is that if an SEC team wanted to sign a player and the player was able to challenge the rule in court, the player would win.  However, unlike with most of the NCAA rules that players are challenging, no SEC school is likely to be willing to try to sign a player and piss off the SEC and thus no player has standing to challenge the rule.

The most logical conclusion would be for aggie to challenge such a "gentlemen's agreement" in court and for the policy to receive the force of law.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Weird flex, bro.

Not all High Schools have a Project Graduation.

Katy started doing it 20-30 years ago, after a number of kids were killed in a Graduation night car accident.

I'm good with keeping 90% of the kids safe and off the streets on the night they graduate. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

He'll get his bag somewhere. There will always be a desparate program out there with some money (cough, aggy, cough). 

This is also the first I've seen that the SEC has a rule that inter-conference transfers have to sit a year? There's no way that's enforceable. If the NCAA can't do it why would a conference?

If the rule is in place by conference agreement (whether unanimous or some majority vote in line with conference by-laws), why would it not be enforceable? Maybe the NCAA couldn't impose sanctions, but seems like the conference could.

Posted
28 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

If the rule is in place by conference agreement (whether unanimous or some majority vote in line with conference by-laws), why would it not be enforceable? Maybe the NCAA couldn't impose sanctions, but seems like the conference could.

Because it's limiting the player's earning potential...the same reason the ncaa keeps losing in court

Posted
2 hours ago, 'stache said:

He'll get his bag somewhere. There will always be a desparate program out there with some money (cough, aggy, cough). 

This is also the first I've seen that the SEC has a rule that inter-conference transfers have to sit a year? There's no way that's enforceable. If the NCAA can't do it why would a conference?

 

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

If the rule is in place by conference agreement (whether unanimous or some majority vote in line with conference by-laws), why would it not be enforceable? Maybe the NCAA couldn't impose sanctions, but seems like the conference could.

As seen above and just fucking plastered everywhere, plenty of people conflate anti-trust shit at a macro level versus an independent entity selectively involved with only a segment of the market. The SEC can do whatever the fuck it wants regarding league eligibility. Players that don’t like it can fuck off elsewhere and still have market access and earning power. 

The NCAA losing constantly in court has zero to do with what a conference would be able to argue in court. This notion that a player could argue that a league rule limits earning power is a laughable fucking joke. It’s lazy thinking riddled with logical fallacies, such as applying the transitive property. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kevwun said:

When Tulane is in your top 3, you have drastically overplayed your hand.

I wouldn't be surprised if they outbid UCLA.

10ucla-attendance3-articleLarge.jpg?qual

Edited by Beau Vine
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

You do realize that NIL money doesn't come from the school, right?

Yes but if the AD had a lot of financial backers the University wouldn't have to bail them out.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, John80 said:

Yes but if the AD had a lot of financial backers the University wouldn't have to bail them out.

I don't think university athletic departments typically use donor money to cover operating expenses.

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Posted

This is a good illustration of why the proposed $21M cap for university sponsored NIL (if thats what the final number ends up being)is so amusing to me. $21M per school for all sports and you have shitty QB's getting $2.4M and bailing after asking for $4M per. I'm sure the baseline number will grow over time, but it will always be grossly inadequate, because college AD's, GM's and coaches will be every bit as incapable of reigning in salary as their professional counterparts. 

  • Drool 1
Posted

CDC has said UT wants to expand its 266 scholarships to 466 once the House settlement is resolved.  Now, an average is a grotesquely inadequate calculation, but $20.5M annual that's an "average" of $44K annual per athlete.

Obviously a few superstars will bank far more than that but I find it unlikely that they'll chew up $10M or more for a half dozen kids.  Maybe they will and the rest will just be told to suck it, but I think it's going to change things, and drastically.  Quite possibly for the better, because this shit is getting out of control.

Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

CDC has said UT wants to expand its 266 scholarships to 466 once the House settlement is resolved.  Now, an average is a grotesquely inadequate calculation, but $20.5M annual that's an "average" of $44K annual per athlete.

Obviously a few superstars will bank far more than that but I find it unlikely that they'll chew up $10M or more for a half dozen kids.  Maybe they will and the rest will just be told to suck it, but I think it's going to change things, and drastically.  Quite possibly for the better, because this shit is getting out of control.

This settlement has nothing to do with NIL or collectives.

Posted
1 minute ago, FloridaHorn said:

This settlement has nothing to do with NIL or collectives.

Not as I understand it.  I don't see indications that third-party donors are excluded but I've certainly read multiple and seemingly credible media summaries that talk about the school's direct NIL payments falling under House.

That said, if I'm wrong, educate me.

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not as I understand it.  I don't see indications that third-party donors are excluded but I've certainly read multiple and seemingly credible media summaries that talk about the school's direct NIL payments falling under House.

That said, if I'm wrong, educate me.

Players will still be able to sign corporate NIL deals.  You can't legally stop a player from doing that.  It's why we're still going to be better off than almost every other school even if the amount the University can contribute is capped and the collectives go away.

Edited by kevwun
Posted
1 minute ago, kevwun said:

Players will still be able to sign corporate NIL deals.  It's why we're still going to be better off than almost every other school.

So the average swim/soccer/etc. athlete will get a reasonable ($44K-ish) cut of that $20.5M and the superstars will be funded externally?  Or will some of that big money come from the $20.5M?

Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So the average swim/soccer/etc. athlete will get a reasonable ($44K-ish) cut of that $20.5M and the superstars will be funded externally?  Or will some of that big money come from the $20.5M?

If it’s like every other school they’re planning on 15 million-ish going to football 3-4 millionish to men’s basketball and the rest split. We will need to rely heavily on 3rd party NIL to stay competitive and above other programs in football. Any cap on this would only bring back bag games. 

Posted

$21M cap for Schools.

does that make a shit for 3rd party?  "Hey, this entity is sponsoring me regardless of my school.  "  

There's still a shit-ton of undefined parameters, all in the name of avoiding calling the players employees.  LMAO.

  • Drool 1
Posted

Thanks for the summary.  Some of us are huge fans of the school but don't have the time or even interest to dive into this stuff.  Never hurts to ask the question.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

1) Collectives are going nowhere. It’s something of a MAD role for the bigger programs and something of a means of keeping the old dirty players from feeling like they can start winning again with $25k bags on “signing day”. 

2) CDC finally grasps point 1. It took awhile. 

This might be the biggest news I’ve seen regarding our NIL. I know you guys who worked to get it going were not happy with how CDC initially went about it. Are you able to let us know what changed his mind or made him see that?

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted

Every time I get annoyed by all this chaos I remind myself of how pissed off I was watching the cheaters buy championships. So net net it’s definitely way better for Texas these days, and to some extent the sports overall. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, closetojumping said:

It’s merely realizing that $20M/$21M isn’t going to be enough to compete. Texas and others are already way above that threshold across all sports. Texas dwarfs that in football alone. 

Programs at Alabama, LSU and numerous other dirtbags in the SEC plus guys like UCLA, Purdue, NW, Maryland, Vandy, most of the Big 12 and ACC are all begging for the $20M/$21M to be a hard cap. None of that is principled. They simply don’t have the money to make larger numbers work.

This is like when the Royals or Twins bitch about the Dodgers. If they had the same access to capital, they’d be doing the same thing. They don’t, so they bitch. Whining that athletes are getting more money somewhere else and it makes it harder for your program to compete gets you collectively to the clearinghouse notion. It’s a house built of straw and kindling. 

I’m not saying anyone here has to like any of this. The only thing any of us can control is how you choose to respond to your circumstances. This chaos is here and will be around for a good long while. If collective bargaining is actually ever achieved, I do think that changes everything. That seems pretty fucking far from here though. 

All of this considered, I strongly advise enjoying ALL of the crying from the longstanding cheaters who rigged the sport in their favor. Watching Bama and Georgia cry repeatedly has been very fulfilling. They’re two of 12-15 doing it who have no shame in their complete hypocrisy. Watching Ohio State pivot and make the new terrain the same as the old terrain has been impressive, but they look like the only one capable of it. 

Thanks for the explanation. It helps a lot.
 
I have been enjoying reading SoonerScoop on this topic. There has been a steady drumbeat, for a few years, of “This has to be fixed (current system where they struggle to compete)! Clearly, this is broken!”

There was a dawning of hope a year ago, when plans for the “House Settlement” came out, with Castiglione explaining it as a functional cap, with auditors enforcing “real NIL”. 
 
Now, there are a lot of voices that realize that the “House Settlement” will not make things like they used to be, like they want them to be. 
 
I do wonder about how much OU’s problems are not having enough donors and how much is lack of enthusiasm for Venables as HC. If I were a whale donor, I don’t know how much (if any) I would give if I didn’t believe the coach could deliver. 

Edited by statsman
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

Every time I get annoyed by all this chaos I remind myself of how pissed off I was watching the cheaters buy championships. So net net it’s definitely way better for Texas these days, and to some extent the sports overall. 

I love having competitive advantage in terms of NIL! I'm glad we are planning to continue to push 3rd party so ALL Texas sports remain competitive nationally. As you said it was terrible watching teams break rules and benefit from it by winning titles. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
12 hours ago, closetojumping said:

This has all been hashed and rehashed on the NIL thread in the recruiting forum on many other threads in the recruiting forum. 

Offline, it’s also been discussed ad nauseum. 

Here are the high points:

1) Collectives are going nowhere. It’s something of a MAD role for the bigger programs and something of a means of keeping the old dirty players from feeling like they can start winning again with $25k bags on “signing day”. 

2) CDC finally grasps point 1. It took awhile. 

3) There’s a concept of a clearinghouse for “fair market value” to govern NIL deals within the House settlement. Many talking heads and old school cheaters are banking on this as a means of keeping mean old Texas and a few others under the NCAA’s thumb. The first time a booster attempts to pay an LB $50k for an autographed jersey and the clearinghouse declines it, a court will laugh at that case within days. If a guy wants to pay another guy some amount for his actual NIL, no clearinghouse can decide whether that is right or wrong. 

4) 501(c)3s will go away as part of the deal. As for TOF, there is already an LLC under the umbrella and will continue in lieu of the charity side in order to facilitate the booster-side overall work with the AD. 

5) Averaging payouts across all scholarships is folly. The lion’s share of the revenue will go as stated previously in this thread. 

6) Corporate NIL will continue to benefit big programs, big brands, blue bloods and flavors of the month. Texas is always 3 of those 4 and often 4 of those 4 and will be one of the big winners in all of this. 

7) Collectives are going to play a big role in helping maintain many of the non-revenue sports. 

 

In this post, MAD means mutually assured destruction, right? 

Informative post. 

Also it should probably be noted re: House that college athletes have a "claim" against their institution's revenue that is hard to quantify. NiL is but a relatively small portion of the revenue claim that stems or stemmed from a blatantly unfair practice by institutions of selling players NIL rights to EA and with jersey sales, among other things.

So House tries to compromise an employer that wants to minimize the claim and an employee that will have great difficulties proving the claim - - not that they are due something for their contribution but how much. 

So players now have the right to monetize their own NIL as well as a more general claim to a portion of revenues collected by institutions. They are pretty independent. 

Posted

Also regarding an antitrust claim against SEC or any other conference. 

Generally, to prove an antitrust claim, you have to prove that the defendant has a monopoly/market power {usually to "set prices") or is dangerously close and actively monopolizing. 

That can be tricky as hell, but was super easy for the NCAA because literally every university competing in athletics was a member and participant. They could hardly argue that they didn't have monopoly power, but rather argued that their existence and competition rules were justified by the interest in preserving amateurism. SCOTUS ruled that that was an insufficient justification and here we are. 

SEC and other conferences are a collusion of a relatively tiny fraction of the institutions engaged in athletic competition, so are far less vulnerable to having their competition rules challenged on antitrust grounds no matter how negative the effects on athletes. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...