NIL Recruiting News Megathread

[Ricky's one-hitter 9084]

Here's a good summary of the *preliminarily* accepted house settlement

[BurntOrange&White 39821]

RIP national signing day

[Magus Ossis 2784]

This is a big deal. No NLI. No signing day. B10 and SEC will be able to keep over 3000 CFB players on scholarship between them. Texas better have a lot of brain power and manpower allocated to recruiting 24/7/365, and that includes recruiting the guys already in orange.

[immamac 42720]

This house settlement is garbage. They should not settle and just eliminate the NCAA. 

In my opinion this is completely unmanageable and non uniform making it impossible to enforce anything, forced arbitration is a complete farce because it's not a league with ownership and profit distribution. Let conferences decide the cap and have parity among member schools. 

There doesn't need to be an NCAA for the SEC to exist, same with the B1G etc.

I guess imagine if this is how they ran the academic side of schools. It would make no sense and it still makes no sense here. 

 

[Huckleberry 32738]

Yeah this is kind of crazy.

Huge leap in baseball scholarship numbers caught my eye, though. Dellenger said most SEC schools only plan to give out 20-27 but that won't last long if they want to improve their depth. Baseball NIL is strong in a few places but full scholarship still matters for depth.

[statsman 5431]

Can anyone say what this decision will mean for the Texas One fund?

[BurntOrange&White 39821]

37 minutes ago, statsman said:

Can anyone say what this decision will mean for the Texas One fund?

IMO will need to continue to operate at a high level in addition to what school can do or hello bag game again

[Not a Sock 2311]

10 hours ago, immamac said:

This house settlement is garbage. They should not settle and just eliminate the NCAA. 

In my opinion this is completely unmanageable and non uniform making it impossible to enforce anything, forced arbitration is a complete farce because it's not a league with ownership and profit distribution. Let conferences decide the cap and have parity among member schools. 

There doesn't need to be an NCAA for the SEC to exist, same with the B1G etc.

I guess imagine if this is how they ran the academic side of schools. It would make no sense and it still makes no sense here. 

 

They have to settle, the SEC and B1G are the NCAA and if they go to trial and loses the damages will be in the billions and NCAA members which include Texas will be on the hook for.

[immamac 42720]

5 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:

They have to settle, the SEC and B1G are the NCAA and if they go to trial and loses the damages will be in the billions and NCAA members which include Texas will be on the hook for.

Damages are already in the billions.

It doesn't mean a lot for TOF as there will still be a set of athletes who want to use their name image and likeness to do good work in the community and those opportunities will still be sought out by charities, corportate NIL and large donors who have charities they care about. 

[Mittens 8196]

 

[BurntOrange&White 39821]

4 minutes ago, Mittens said:

 

The comments on that tweet are funny and roasting Perkins

Edited October 10 by BurntOrange&White

[Funk Doctor Spock 12111]

4 hours ago, Mittens said:

 

Ya think?

[Dbeasy 15007]

Can one of our surly lawyers explain like I’m five why these lawsuits are able to go back in time for damages? The rules in place by the ncaa were based on voluntary participation in a sport in their league. Why are these lawsuits able to prove that anything was against the law by the ncaa? What is the hook the lawyers have used?

[Katfid54 8594]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

Can one of our surly lawyers explain like I’m five why these lawsuits are able to go back in time for damages? The rules in place by the ncaa were based on voluntary participation in a sport in their league. Why are these lawsuits able to prove that anything was against the law by the ncaa? What is the hook the lawyers have used?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

[Magus Ossis 2784]

6 hours ago, Mittens said:

 

Some lawyer help me please: when can minors enter binding contracts?

[Funk Doctor Spock 12111]

I would hope 17-18, but who knows these days. 

[Dbeasy 15007]

49 minutes ago, Katfid54 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

 

what law or contract did they break that results in financial damages?

[Texas Wahoo 3383]

9 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Can one of our surly lawyers explain like I’m five why these lawsuits are able to go back in time for damages? The rules in place by the ncaa were based on voluntary participation in a sport in their league. Why are these lawsuits able to prove that anything was against the law by the ncaa? What is the hook the lawyers have used?

Antitrust violation.  If all of the big tech companies conspired to keep wages down, former Google employees could still sue, even though they voluntarily agreed to work for Google.  It's the same for college athletes.  They can sue because the schools/NCAA conspired to keep their wages down (by limited/banning NIL and prohibiting the schools from paying players what they are worth.

 

7 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

what law or contract did they break that results in financial damages?

It is not a contract issue, it is an antitrust issue.  You cannot contract around the antitrust laws unless it is in the context of negotiating with a union.

 

FYI, from the Judge in the House case in a denial of a motion to dismiss.  It summarizes the argument pretty well:

Quote

Here, Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a relevant market, as well as injury to competition in that market. Plaintiffs allege that the relevant market is the nationwide market for the labor of Division I college athletes, wherein Division I members compete with each other to purchase through bundles of goods and services student-athletes’ labor and the right to use their NIL. Plaintiffs further allege that, because Division I members have overwhelming market power as a result of the absence of reasonable substitutes for the opportunities offered by Division I members, the challenged rules allow Division I members to suppress competition that would otherwise exist among them by artificially fixing the price of the bundle of goods and services offered to student-athletes. In the absence of the challenged rules, Plaintiffs allege, competition among Division I members would increase, resulting in an increase in the price of the bundle of goods and services that Division I members would offer to student-athletes. Plaintiffs allege that one of the ways in which Division I members could increase the price of the bundle of goods and services in the absence of the challenged rules would be to offer student-athletes a share of the revenue that Division I members derive from the licensing or commercializing of student-athletes’ NIL. See House Compl. ¶¶ 81-87; Oliver Compl. ¶¶ 63-70.

The injury to competition that Plaintiffs allege here is the artificial suppression of the price of the bundle of goods and services that student-athletes can receive in exchange for their labor and the right to use their NIL within the nationwide labor market just described. This alleged injury is cognizable and sufficient to survive the present motion to dismiss. See Atl. Richfield, 495 U.S. at 341, 110 S.Ct. 1884 (noting that “price competition” in the relevant market is “in the interest of competition”); United States v. eBay, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“Antitrust law addresses employer conspiracies controlling employment terms precisely because they tamper with the employment market and thereby impair the opportunities of those who sell their services there.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

 

Edited October 11 by Texas Wahoo

[Dbeasy 15007]

3 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Antitrust violation.  If all of the big tech companies conspired to keep wages down, former Google employees could still sue, even though they voluntarily agreed to work for Google.  It's the same for college athletes.  They can sue because the schools/NCAA conspired to keep their wages down (by limited/banning NIL and prohibiting the schools from paying players what they are worth.

 

It is not a contract issue, it is an antitrust issue.  You cannot contract around the antitrust laws unless it is in the context of negotiating with a union.

 

FYI, from the Judge in the House case in a denial of a motion to dismiss.  It summarizes the argument pretty well:

 

Perfect. Thank you. 

[Tex-19 2870]

On 10/8/2024 at 6:56 AM, Ricky's one-hitter said:

Here's a good summary of the *preliminarily* accepted house settlement

 

Can someone explain this future rev share stuff to me:

Does this mean Title IX applies, so basically ~11mm can be shared with men and ~11mm to women?

What does "revenue mostly shared by buying player NIL rights" mean? Does that mean the school owns exclusive NIL rights, so if an athlete wants to do a commercial, the school has to approve it and gets paid for it?

[Tree Fidy 1196]

[Ricky's one-hitter 9084]

1 hour ago, Tex-19 said:

What does "revenue mostly shared by buying player NIL rights" mean? Does that mean the school owns exclusive NIL rights, so if an athlete wants to do a commercial, the school has to approve it and gets paid for it?

Yeah, basically. 

I wrote a diatribe about how to do this as NFTs a couple years ago. It's nice to see the logical solution prevail.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

48 minutes ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

Yeah, basically. 

I wrote a diatribe about how to do this as NFTs a couple years ago. It's nice to see the logical solution prevail.

Clearly, I haven’t thought this all the way through, but why buy exclusivity for the players’ NIL rather than buying enough to provide the floor while allowing third parties to provide the ceiling?

[Kwix 2186]

27 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

Clearly, I haven’t thought this all the way through, but why buy exclusivity for the players’ NIL rather than buying enough to provide the floor while allowing third parties to provide the ceiling?

Because the poors want to cap what others can pay. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

5 minutes ago, Kwix said:

Because the poors want to cap what others can pay. 

How are the poors going to prevent players from contracting with third parties and not end up in the same legal problems as now? Seems at least as trust-like as anything going on now. 

“Hey, player, we’ve decided that Nike, the Lamborghini dealer, nor anyone else can contract for your services.” Good luck, imo.

Again, haven’t investigated it thoroughly, but I seem to recall some kind of independent clearinghouse for third party deals, which seems to indicate, well, third party deals are fine. 

Edited October 11 by Doc Daneeka

[Kwix 2186]

2 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

How are the poors going to prevent

I don't think they will be successful in stopping anything. 

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

Just now, Kwix said:

I don't think they will be successful in stopping anything. 

Then I guess buying 100% of NIL because they want that wouldn’t be a very good reason for doing it. Which means the question still stands. 

[Tex-19 2870]

After reading the UT release, I'm guessing the revenue share is technically for NIL, but not exclusive NIL rights. So the school is paying them for the right to use their NIL all over the place, but they can still do endorsements with other companies.

[BurntOrange&White 39821]

The quote is interesting 
 

[BurntOrange&White 39821]

 

 

 

[texifornia 56594]

 

[Tex-19 2870]

Maybe wrong thread but Diego Pavia is suing the NCAA over eligibility rules. Part of the suit is about JUCO treatment but there's also a piece relating to the 4-year limit that I'm not clear on. Is this the beginning of the end for the 4-year eligibility rule in CFB?

[FloridaHorn 4735]

41 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

Maybe wrong thread but Diego Pavia is suing the NCAA over eligibility rules. Part of the suit is about JUCO treatment but there's also a piece relating to the 4-year limit that I'm not clear on. Is this the beginning of the end for the 4-year eligibility rule in CFB?

Pavia doesn’t want his two years of juco to impact his ability to play 4 years of D1 ball.

[Funk Doctor Spock 12111]

Too fucking bad. Maybe he should have walked in somewhere instead of going the JUCO route. This 5-6-20 year (looking at you, Cam Rising) shit needs to end. It's killing CFB. For God's sake, move the fuck on, dude. 

[Katfid54 8594]

3 hours ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

This 5-6-20 year (looking at you, Cam Rising) shit needs to end. It's killing CFB.

You think Cam Rising and Diego Pavia are killing CFB???

Get a grip, dude. 

[Funk Doctor Spock 12111]

30 minutes ago, Katfid54 said:

You think Cam Rising and Diego Pavia are killing CFB???

Get a grip, dude. 

Yes, I do. We don't need 25 year old adults abusing eligibility because hurt feelings and injury history when they should hang them up. You think it's helping CFB? By all means, educate us. 

[TheBryMan81 2504]

6 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

Yes, I do. We don't need 25 year old adults abusing eligibility because hurt feelings and injury history when they should hang them up. You think it's helping CFB? By all means, educate us. 

Vanderbilt beating Alabama was pretty fucking entertaining. I'd be down to have him around for another year. 

Guys that would take advantage of this rule probably have a near 0 shot at NFL. I don't have an issue with them trying to make one more big payday before they go pro in sometime other than sports... Or in Canada.

[Funk Doctor Spock 12111]

2 minutes ago, TheBryMan81 said:

Vanderbilt beating Alabama was pretty fucking entertaining. I'd be down to have him around for another year. 

Guys that would take advantage of this rule probably have a near 0 shot at NFL. I don't have an issue with them trying to make one more big payday before they go pro in sometime other than sports... Or in Canada.

OK, I can see your point there. I just find it kind of sad, especially for Rising, who was in the same class as Trevor Lawrence, which in his 4th year in the NFL.