https://www.outkick.com/sports/house...ons-being-made
Printable View
Paywall'd.
What are the cliffs?
Works for me
"How are they going to say one deal is different from the other," one athletic director pointed out to OutKick. So, every time our school or a third party has an idea for a partnership that exceeds $600, we're at the mercy of this system that will determine if it's legit. What happens when an athlete decides not to disclose their ‘NIL’ deal with the clearinghouse, and just pockets the money from a booster?
"These are the types of scenarios that will present themselves in the short term. We have no idea how the system is going to work, and you're going to have players get their deals rejected. This will only lead to further lawsuits. This will be a non-stop problem in the first year. But, we have to find ways to raise more money, as well. The high-profile schools aren't just spending $14 to $16 million that rev-share allows. If we want to keep up, there has to be an influx of money, and we're just talking about one year."
This athletic director isn't wrong. While plenty of people want to act as if this settlement will not lead to the ‘old days’ returning, my question is, how can it not? If a school agreed to a $3 million contract with the star receiver, but can only pay half of the deal because of the revenue-sharing cap, you think that player is going to take a cut?
Heck no, they want what was agreed upon, and the minute one NIL deal is denied, there will be further litigation. According to the College Sports Commission, if a deal is denied, both parties can enter ‘neutral arbitration’ that starts with an appeal.
It all comes down to whether people who violate the rules will be punished so harshly that schools and fanbases are afraid to cheat, but also don't decide to leave the NCAA altogether and make their own new rules.
I don't have a lot of faith that that needle can be threaded, but I hope they figure it out.
Bagmen everywhere coming out of retirement.
Dang just saved the revs job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy Jenkins
I didn't read the article, but anything in there about bringing sanity to the portal process? Continual transferring of players is eventually going to lessen interest in CFB and do real damage. There's still time to get a handle on it and right the ship, but it needs to be done soon.
Thanks for posting the text, 34.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Am I the only one that saw the post title and thought it was about our upcoming football season?
So can anyone sue or does it have to be a player? Asking for a friend.
Nope,Quote:
Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg
So my thing is, how is Deloitte going to tell a kid that they aren't worth what a school is paying them? Like if the demand is there how can Deloitte tell a kid, "Well I know they offered you 1.2 million, but we think you're only worth 250K". The NCAA, and Deloitte, will be sued and lose in about 10 seconds.
Exactamundo. Why I been telling folks this BS wont help us. All it's doing is forcing the schools to basically pay $20MM of the NIL instead of boosters. The boosters will then fund the rest of whats needed to land top players. This will help us out to stay ahead of non-P4 schools but little else vs the big boysQuote:
Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve
This whole "system" if you can call it that is a complete and total disaster.
Since you can?t limit players anymore, limit the schools. If we are going to have the idiotic 105 roster, then limit schools to 105 spots over 4 years. Only way you get an open spot is if a player graduates or completes their eligibility. Kids can transfer all they want but it limits if a school can take them.
No doubt. It's about as reliable as an ice cream machine at McDonalds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Slow rolling train wreck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
They will use a 12 factor test to determine if it is true NIL or pay for play, which courts have said the ncaa is still free to prohibit. If it is true value NIL, it will be approved. Will be interesting to see how aggressive Deloitte is at striking down deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve
If the athlete disputes Deloitte's ruling, he/she can appeal it first to a commission and then submit it to neutral, binding arbitration. The NCAA has nothing to do with this.
The athletes, unless they opted out of the House class, bargained for and agreed to this setup (hopefully quells antitrust concerns), so that does create a legal argument to uphold the arbitration. Not saying it will win out, I'm just saying that legal argument now at least exits where it didn't before.