Article backing up what I've been saying about House settlement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sack07

The NIL part is currently separate from the $20.5M. I am not sure anyone stated otherwise. I think I even stated that you were correct in that earnings from third parties has not been capped. I even stated Cooter?s point that the legality of striking down deals will be challenged. But that has nothing to do with the article you posted.

On other interesting notes, Deloitte who will be working with this enforcement arm, has stated that 90% of current deals with public companies would be upheld. However, 70% of current deals with collectives would be struck down. We probably will not see it settled into a final form for several more years as there will definitely be legal challenges.

---

Collectives could and should be severely limited to actual NIL instead of pay for play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sack07

The NIL part is currently separate from the $20.5M. I am not sure anyone stated otherwise. I think I even stated that you were correct in that earnings from third parties has not been capped. I even stated Cooter?s point that the legality of striking down deals will be challenged. But that has nothing to do with the article you posted.

On other interesting notes, Deloitte who will be working with this enforcement arm, has stated that 90% of current deals with public companies would be upheld. However, 70% of current deals with collectives would be struck down. We probably will not see it settled into a final form for several more years as there will definitely be legal challenges.

---

My hope is that when the denials of NIL deals are challenged, Judge Wilken's Order approving the House settlement is relied upon to say that athletes bargained for this system and, therefore, Deloitte's findings are binding. We will see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confucius say

My hope is that when the denials of NIL deals are challenged, Judge Wilken's Order approving the House settlement is relied upon to say that athletes bargained for this system and, therefore, Deloitte's findings are binding. We will see.

---

But, athletes did not bargain for this system. There is no collective representation of the players - like a union- in this process. Yes, players had a hand in the lawsuits that created this mess, that is not the same as collective bargaining. When they do decide to sue, we are going to see more things tossed because of this lack of collective bargaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

But, athletes did not bargain for this system. There is no collective representation of the players - like a union- in this process. Yes, players had a hand in the lawsuits that created this mess, that is not the same as collective bargaining. When they do decide to sue, we are going to see more things tossed because of this lack of collective bargaining.

---

I think the argument is that the players were represented. Just like a plaintiff in any lawsuit that results in a settlement. The plaintiff bargained for the settlement.
The question to me is whether the current players are bound by the Plaintiffs' agreement in the House settlement. If they are, they have already agreed to the Deloitte clearinghouse.

This was never truly about Name, Image and Likeness. It was always about Pay For Play.

If it were, it would have to include regular students as well. When they show a promotion of the school's academic success and research and on campus activities, they use videos and photos of students. Those students Images and a likeness are used to "promote" the value just like athletes are used to promote their sport.

I still think there will eventually be huge repercussions for valuation of the male athletes higher than the female athletes. Sure, there are specific instances of star females getting high payouts for promoting the school due to their high profile recognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sack07

For NIL, anything over $600 will go before a committee to be scrutinized for fair market value. The legality will be challenged, I think. Will be interesting to see how it all settles. Still just beginning.

---

Uh huh. And I've got some land I'd like to sell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Uh huh. And I've got some land I'd like to sell you.

---

The rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to be worse off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Uh huh. And I've got some land I'd like to sell you.

---

The reading comprehension in this thread is laughable. Are you disputing that NIL deals will go through a clearinghouse? Or are you disputing that the clearinghouse will have any teeth to enforce anything? (Hint: If it is the latter, I stated as such in the post you quoted and in other posts.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sack07

The reading comprehension in this thread is laughable. Are you disputing that NIL deals will go through a clearinghouse? Or are you disputing that the clearinghouse will have any teeth to enforce anything? (Hint: If it is the latter, I stated as such in the post you quoted and in other posts.)

---

Hey sack o shat, do you really think that the haves are going to give up any advantage that they currently hold? Especially in this political environment. If you do I?ve got a bridge to go with that land Home is selling you.

It truly is unfortunate we have arrived at this place. An evolving business model is overtaking the purity of amateur athletics of yesteryear. Such a shame. We will forevermore reminisce of the days gone by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coursesuper

Hey sack o shat, do you really think that the haves are going to give up any advantage that they currently hold? Especially in this political environment. If you do I?ve got a bridge to go with that land Home is selling you.

---

sacko still doesnt understand. The article talked about how certain SEC schools said their NIL was not going to be limited so the SEC scrapped plans to do so. The rich of the SEC have had an advantage for about 75 years now and they arent going to give it up. They do not want parity. They do not want to be capped. And they wont be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coursesuper

Hey sack o shat, do you really think that the haves are going to give up any advantage that they currently hold? Especially in this political environment. If you do I?ve got a bridge to go with that land Home is selling you.

---

Very juvenile of you. But here I am on a message board, what else did I expect?

I am still not sure what you are disputing. I have not once tried to play this off as trying to level the playing field or anything. I just tried to interpret the original article. I have only stated facts from the House settlement and some conjecture on how the after effects of the settlement might play out. I think it will be interesting to watch. The House settlement has never tried to cap NIL. A myriad of people are writing articles and discussing this. It is really not that hard to be just a little informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

sacko still doesnt understand. The article talked about how certain SEC schools said their NIL was not going to be limited so the SEC scrapped plans to do so. The rich of the SEC have had an advantage for about 75 years now and they arent going to give it up. They do not want parity. They do not want to be capped. And they wont be

---

If they try to rule against them they are just going to sue and do what they want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

sacko still doesnt understand. The article talked about how certain SEC schools said their NIL was not going to be limited so the SEC scrapped plans to do so. The rich of the SEC have had an advantage for about 75 years now and they arent going to give it up. They do not want parity. They do not want to be capped. And they wont be

---

Dang it, I let you draw me back in. The article talks about the House settlement. House never tried to cap NIL from third parties. If you are referring to revenue sharing from the schools as NIL, it is capped at $20.5M.

I know you have a problem with being wrong, but I have not once said you were wrong. I agree NIL from third parties will not be capped. I have only said you lack reading comprehension as your point had nothing to do with the article.

for all thats holy- the article talked about SEC teams refusing to be limited on NIL- the mf'ing thing I've been saying all along. From the mf'ing article:

"You’re not going to be surprised by this, but Kentucky did not — and some others too — but Kentucky Basketball specifically was a pretty big voice in the room to make sure that those standards weren’t set as a policy because Kentucky, obviously, wants to spend more [in basketball].”

Dellenger used South Carolina women’s basketball and Arkansas and LSU baseball as examples of other programs that didn’t want caps. There was so much dissent that the plans were shelved — for now."

That was what the damn thing was about. Hell- even the title of the article is:

Kentucky Basketball reportedly derailed SEC’s plans to cap NIL spending per sport


How the **** am I the with reading comprehension problems?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

for all thats holy- the article talked about SEC teams refusing to be limited on NIL- the mf'ing thing I've been saying all along. From the mf'ing article:

"You’re not going to be surprised by this, but Kentucky did not — and some others too — but Kentucky Basketball specifically was a pretty big voice in the room to make sure that those standards weren’t set as a policy because Kentucky, obviously, wants to spend more [in basketball].”

Dellenger used South Carolina women’s basketball and Arkansas and LSU baseball as examples of other programs that didn’t want caps. There was so much dissent that the plans were shelved — for now."

That was what the damn thing was about. Hell- even the title of the article is:

Kentucky Basketball reportedly derailed SEC’s plans to cap NIL spending per sport


How the **** am I the with reading comprehension problems?????

---

Once again, they will not cap how much a school can give to each sport from the total $20.5M that school?s will hand out from sharing revenue with the athletes. It even goes on to state how different schools have publicly stated how they will divvy it all up. That?s what the article is talking about. If that is what you meant by your original statement, I have wasted too much time here with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sack07

Once again, they will not cap how much a school can give to each sport from the total $20.5M that school?s will hand out from sharing revenue with the athletes. It even goes on to state how different schools have publicly stated how they will divvy it all up. That?s what the article is talking about. If that is what you meant by your original statement, I have wasted too much time here with you.

---

but what u arent getting is that I dont care at all about the 20.5MM that the school does. Neither does any SEC school. It has nothing to do with NIL which will be the difference in programs moving forward. I dont understand why you cant comprehend that. The article points out that the schools DGAF about all that and will do what they want in NIL

The 20.5 shit is irrelevant

It could be that the clearinghouse has much more teeth than y'all think. It appears the current players agreed to this system and to be subject to the clearinghouse as part of the House settlement. If true, they have already agreed to abide by the rulings of the clearinghouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confucius say

It could be that the clearinghouse has much more teeth than y'all think. It appears the current players agreed to this system and to be subject to the clearinghouse as part of the House settlement. If true, they have already agreed to abide by the rulings of the clearinghouse.

---

you cant be that delusional

Texas and Bama gonna give up their advantage so that Mississippi State can beat them regularly? Please tell me u arent that stupid????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

you cant be that delusional

---

We shall see. I'm simply saying the legal argument is there now. Until now, every NIL ruling has gone off on antitrust grounds. If current and future players through 2035 (which is who the class is made up of) bargained for this settlement and the clearinghouse, the antitrust concerns should go away.