Jump to content

NIL Recruiting News Megathread

texifornia

By texifornia
in 🤫$9.95🤫

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

closetojumping
closetojumping

Thanks for the thoughts. The original HWH team getting the original IP out into the open and getting the longform IRS approval were instrumental in all of this. That's @SquishMitten @RGBIII @SydneyCar

closetojumping
closetojumping

Outside of unifying all initiatives under one umbrella, which wasn't a small feat for the parties involved, there are two really big things here: 1) All players in all sports will be making money

closetojumping
closetojumping

I went to the tournament and the gala. Kind of obligated on it and to pay for it, or part of it. It was all well done and a ton of money was raised. We’d committed to a nut for this new cycle for full

Posted Images

Magus Ossis

Magus Ossis 2883

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 43553

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33516

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Not a Sock

Not a Sock 2342

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 43553

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbeasy

Dbeasy 15224

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Katfid54

Katfid54 8635

Posted
Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Wahoo

Texas Wahoo 3475

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by Texas Wahoo
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbeasy

Dbeasy 15224

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex-19

Tex-19 2885

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

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

image.thumb.png.17c8375646f10c034b65846fdd8bcfde.png

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky's one-hitter

Ricky's one-hitter 9154

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Daneeka

Doc Daneeka 6769

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kwix

Kwix 2259

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Daneeka

Doc Daneeka 6769

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by Doc Daneeka
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex-19

Tex-19 2885

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Tex-19

Tex-19 2885

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FloridaHorn

FloridaHorn 4811

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBryMan81

TheBryMan81 2523

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Funk Doctor Spock

Funk Doctor Spock 12792

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77919

Posted
Posted
On 10/8/2024 at 7:19 AM, 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. 

 

 

ncaa is a tax free multi billion company, they’re not going anywhere 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...