Jump to content

UNLV starting QB: fuck this shit, I'm outta here (check bounced)


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bill Brasky said:

don't be fatuous Jeffrey 

I mean it turned into a media shitstorm, even if he comes back now it still looks bad for everyone - now he looks like he's getting paid to play straight up, the collective looks like they had to save face, the school is going to be for sure investigated etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I mean it turned into a media shitstorm, even if he comes back now it still looks bad for everyone - now he looks like he's getting paid to play straight up, the collective looks like they had to save face, the school is going to be for sure investigated etc etc.

 

Boy, I bet UNLV is worried about that.  

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Such a wholesome, small town.  Plenty of family owned businesses.  Bedrock of the community types.

 

 

It would be real unfortunate if something happened to that college football team of theirs...real unfortunate 

robert de niro smoke GIF

 

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

I mean it turned into a media shitstorm, even if he comes back now it still looks bad for everyone - now he looks like he's getting paid to play straight up, the collective looks like they had to save face, the school is going to be for sure investigated etc etc.

lolz because that's not what it looked like before when he transferred from Holy Cross to UNLV ??

Edited by Evil Bill Obrien
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all understand that in order to get money from a collective, the player must perform actions unrelated to sports to get paid, ergo it's not "pay for play".  However, we all also know that if they aren't good at playing sports they aren't going to get the opportunity to make money from attending a charity function, doing an ad for a car dealership, or whatever non sports related activity they're being formally compensated for.

Arguing about whether it's "pay for play" is pure semantics.  No collective is going to offer some out of shape 40 year old fucks to sign autographs at a dealership.  The people who get these opportunities from these groups are people who are good at playing sports, and take on these other obligations with the understanding that they will also compete for whatever university that collective is connected to.  OJ Simpson wasn't a convicted murderer.  We all know he unjustifiably killed 2 human beings.

I definitely agree that all sides are going to look shitty in this, because so much of this sounds like handshake deals with little proof of what was actually offered and what was actually tendered.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We all understand that in order to get money from a collective, the player must perform actions unrelated to sports to get paid, ergo it's not "pay for play".  However, we all also know that if they aren't good at playing sports they aren't going to get the opportunity to make money from attending a charity function, doing an ad for a car dealership, or whatever non sports related activity they're being formally compensated for.

Arguing about whether it's "pay for play" is pure semantics.  No collective is going to offer some out of shape 40 year old fucks to sign autographs at a dealership.  The people who get these opportunities from these groups are people who are good at playing sports, and take on these other obligations with the understanding that they will also compete for whatever university that collective is connected to.  OJ Simpson wasn't a convicted murderer.  We all know he unjustifiably killed 2 human beings.

I definitely agree that all sides are going to look shitty in this, because so much of this sounds like handshake deals with little proof of what was actually offered and what was actually tendered.

A simple solution, though it will likely never happen, would be for the NFL to allow 18-year-olds to be draft eligible. If a player thinks that they're worth millions of dollars straight out of high school, they should be able to go play in the NFL if they want to. It would help filter out the players that are only playing college football for the sake of getting a payday and nothing else. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

#teamSluka

Odom just cost himself millions 

Nah.  He will end up someplace next year that pays more than UNLV will, based on what he's done in his time at UNLV

And he will get it in his contract that whatever collective that school has, it will do things correctly.

 

EDIT:  Now if it gets out that Odom was involved with how the collective was doing their business, and told the collective not to pay the kid, then yeah, he's fucked.  

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

lmao holy absolute fuck this is cooked. 

The more the NIL agent puts out, the more it sounds like he doesn't know what he's doing.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, horn009 said:

A simple solution, though it will likely never happen, would be for the NFL to allow 18-year-olds to be draft eligible. If a player thinks that they're worth millions of dollars straight out of high school, they should be able to go play in the NFL if they want to. It would help filter out the players that are only playing college football for the sake of getting a payday and nothing else. 

it's 21 years or 3 years of NCAA experience either/or currently isn't it? 

As in you can be 21 and never played college football or you can play 3 years starting at 17 or younger and still go. I don't think they allow under 18 for legal reasons. I vaguely remember this because I was curious about it a while back and read about it, but can't really recall the details. 

IDK that they'll ever get away from that rule just because of how physically demanding/violent the sport is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, horn009 said:

A simple solution, though it will likely never happen, would be for the NFL to allow 18-year-olds to be draft eligible. If a player thinks that they're worth millions of dollars straight out of high school, they should be able to go play in the NFL if they want to. It would help filter out the players that are only playing college football for the sake of getting a payday and nothing else. 

Letting 18 year olds be draft eligible isn’t going to change anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, immamac said:

it's 21 years or 3 years of NCAA experience either/or currently isn't it? 

As in you can be 21 and never played college football or you can play 3 years starting at 17 or younger and still go. I don't think they allow under 18 for legal reasons. I vaguely remember this because I was curious about it a while back and read about it, but can't really recall the details. 

IDK that they'll ever get away from that rule just because of how physically demanding/violent the sport is.

There was that DT from Louisville who was drafted at age 19 by the Texans in the 1st round. One of only two teenagers to ever be drafted in the NFL draft.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, immamac said:

it's 21 years or 3 years of NCAA experience either/or currently isn't it? 

As in you can be 21 and never played college football or you can play 3 years starting at 17 or younger and still go. I don't think they allow under 18 for legal reasons. I vaguely remember this because I was curious about it a while back and read about it, but can't really recall the details. 

IDK that they'll ever get away from that rule just because of how physically demanding/violent the sport is.

I think the only requirement is that they have to be three years removed from high school. College isn't technically required. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, horn009 said:

I think the only requirement is that they have to be three years removed from high school. College isn't technically required. 

Yes.  Made me think of that one recruit who went to CFL and I don't think he ever came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

it's 21 years or 3 years of NCAA experience either/or currently isn't it? 

As in you can be 21 and never played college football or you can play 3 years starting at 17 or younger and still go. I don't think they allow under 18 for legal reasons. I vaguely remember this because I was curious about it a while back and read about it, but can't really recall the details. 

IDK that they'll ever get away from that rule just because of how physically demanding/violent the sport is.

Why pay to train the players before they reach their peak when college football will do it for free?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, horn009 said:

I think the only requirement is that they have to be three years removed from high school. College isn't technically required. 

I just checked the NFL site, looks like this is the requirement. 

 

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Why would UNLV be paying anything? I thought NIL could not come from a university?

they wouldn't be paying anything if they were compliant. Next season they can pay him with revenue sharing and direct NIL deals with the university. 

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

Boy, who could have foreseen that stacking pay for play on top of process that has been foundationally built on dishonest representations of A to Z about the future(recruiting) would lead to situations like this?  It's going to get way worse before it gets better.

Edited by Incredulity
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Come on guys.  It's obviously shorthand for "UNLV's collective."

Barry Odom can't work for the collective or do negotiations on their behalf. That's a rule fucking everywhere and it's not a bad one even if these deals were pay to play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incredulity said:

Boy, who could have foreseen that stacking pay for play on top of process that has been foundationally built on dishonest representations of A to Z about the future(recruiting) would lead to situations like this.  It's going to get way worse before it gets better.

it's all fixed next season. Pay for play is legal with revshare through university and coaches directly authorizing payments and dollar amounts to specific players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, horn009 said:

I think the only requirement is that they have to be three years removed from high school. College isn't technically required. 

Correct. Eric Swann 2x pro bowl DT was drafted out of a semi-pro league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

it's all fixed next season. Pay for play is legal with revshare through university and coaches directly authorizing payments and dollar amounts to specific players. 

Is that true even if the House settlement does not get approved before then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, immamac said:

it's all fixed next season. Pay for play is legal with revshare through university and coaches directly authorizing payments and dollar amounts to specific players. 

Granted that will probably fix the front end.  Just wait until the Saban oversigning type meat grinder to get rid of players who are not earning the $$$ kicks in.  Plus salary caps are going to have to be implemented.  We will absolutely race towards some historical blue chip having a bigger payroll than NFL teams.  Its inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Is it?  The agent set up a call with coaches/AD, not the collective.

They have to coordinate with coaches to know who they're recruiting and their priorities. The collectives can't just offer a 5 star player a deal and force him into the program if the coach wanted someone else or had a different priority.

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

18 minutes ago, horn009 said:

It would help filter out the players that are only playing college football for the sake of getting a payday and nothing else. 

Why is this necessary? Why do we need to remove players that only want to be paid for their labor?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@immamac is correct that this particular NIL fail is a clown fiesta.  Some of the fails here include:

  • Coaches directly negotiating and making promises
  • Direct inducement
  • Never papering a deal in advance
  • Lack of coordination between UNLV collective and team
  • Communication fails between coaches, team, agent, and player
  • Leaking to the media
  • Player/agent potentially trying to renegotiate mid-season
  • Player opting out of season to preserve his eligibility (which is his right) for "non-legit reasons" e.g. not getting paid what he thought he'd get paid via NIL - makes him look like a bitch

Also imma's assertion that NIL isn't pay-for-play is strictly, formally, contractually, and legally true as TOF and any NIL-rules compliant entity is papering deals today.  It's also total bullshit, because as others pointed out, it's only Texas players or those Texas wants to be players that are getting inked to NIL deals.  And if those players don't feel like their commitments by TOF or others aren't met, they aren't going to hire a lawyer to sue TOF; they're going to turn to their #1 leverage: sitting or threatening to transfer, just like X. Worthy did until he got paid off.  While the contract is between TOF and player, there is an unnamed 3rd party that everyone knows is actually in there: the team.  Imma sitting here shouting at everyone about how stupid we are that this isn't actually PfP makes me think of this:

obi-wan-kenobi-certain-point-of-view.gif

Also if this isn't pay-for-play, why have I seen imma and ctj on threads talking about Sark's recruiting and how "yes he's a good recruiter, but really we need credit for setting up NIL/TOF/Burnt Ends because without that we wouldn't be getting/retaining the talent."  ...wait a sec, I thought these were just general/random brand ambassador deals?  Not anything that would induce someone to actually choose Texas?  If these are just general name image likeness deals that have nothing to do with choosing Texas, why should anyone consider it having anything to do with recruiting then?  Can't have it both ways.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, immamac said:

it's all fixed next season. Pay for play is legal with revshare through university and coaches directly authorizing payments and dollar amounts to specific players. 

Lulz. I'm sure it will all work out, and costs wont spiral out of control, because obviously AD's will be every bit as disciplined in an arms race as pro sports GMs. It may work out at Texas, because of our revenue generation and CDC being an elite AD, but coming up with enough coin to pay these players will fuck over a lot of schools. And if they cant come up with the money, it will fall back on the collectives and we're back to the same place except with a greater tie in between schools and collectives. NIL as implemented today is a complete fucking joke, and I see nothing that indicates the coming years will be any better. Tennessee jacking up fees 10% is just the start. At least the pros dont let you switch teams every year, and have some semblance of a salary cap. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
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.



×
×
  • Create New...