Three guys out the last day or so.
I assume this is about playing time. Good luck to them but should not hurt us (right?).
I assume this is about playing time. Good luck to them but should not hurt us (right?).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
i know we can't keep them from getting paid but can't we tighten up the transfer rules?Three guys out the last day or so.
I assume this is about playing time. Good luck to them but should not hurt us (right?).
Courts apparently say noi know we can't keep them from getting paid but can't we tighten up the transfer rules?
i know we can't keep them from getting paid but can't we tighten up the transfer rules?
Under current NCAA rules, no because "the schools aren't paying them." But they can certainly allow for that and begin using actual contracts. The schools have always been greedy and want to keep as much money for themselves as they could. Even if it ruins their sports products.i know we can't keep them from getting paid but can't we tighten up the transfer rules?
what does the players being paid have anything to do with the transfer rules? aren't those two different issues? can they transfer as many times as they want within a year?Under current NCAA rules, no because "the schools aren't paying them." But they can certainly allow for that and begin using actual contracts. The schools have always been greedy and want to keep as much money for themselves as they could. Even if it ruins their sports products.
Can an NFL or NBA player do that?can they transfer as many times as they want within a year?
i don't think so but they have contracts.Can an NFL or NBA player do that?
Could be about player leaving due to playing time, family issues, etc. Could also be about CCC deciding they are not a cultural fit, a skill set fit, etc. Whatever the reason I wish them well.Three guys out the last day or so.
I assume this is about playing time. Good luck to them but should not hurt us (right?).
I’d guess players would have a school contract (when revenue sharing starts) + NIL, so they’re paid like any other pro athlete.Contracts won't stop name image likeness. You think they'd sign if the agreement forbade outside income? So NIL would still be a big thing. And supported by courts.
But, I wonder if transfer rules would be enforceable? If they didn't want to play under those rules, they could go play at all those other colleges. Oh wait...
Unless multiple transfers were also allowed by the agreement with the players union just like NIL would be.
That's what I said in in my post.i don't think so but they have contracts.
No, they wouldn't stop NIL but NIL would be based on what players could come up with on their own, not what they can get in a bidding war amongst the schools who pretend the donations are about NIL.Contracts won't stop name image likeness. You think they'd sign if the agreement forbade outside income? So NIL would still be a big thing. And supported by courts.
But, I wonder if transfer rules would be enforceable? If they didn't want to play under those rules, they could go play at all those other colleges. Oh wait...
Unless multiple transfers were also allowed by the agreement with the players union just like NIL would be.
How do you figure that?No, they wouldn't stop NIL but NIL would be based on what players could come up with on their own, not what they can get in a bidding war amongst the schools who pretend the donations are about NIL.
How do I figure what?How do you figure that?
How do you figure bidding by NIL collectives would go away? You haven't made any case that there's any reason it would.How do I figure what?
If players were signed and paid by a contract, then why would the schools assist with NIL in that setup?
You really think the majority of current NIL has anything to do with NIL and that they players are doing much work getting the NIL other than asking for the money?
People right now are donating to NIL to buy players for their team.How do you figure bidding by NIL collectives would go away? You haven't made any case that there's any reason it would.
"You really think the majority of current NIL has anything to do with NIL and that they players are doing much work getting the NIL other than asking for the money?"
NO! Where the heck did I ever say anything that stupid? If I did I apologize.
Here's the new scenario:
"Here's a VERY nice amount you will make in revenue sharing from our school contract!" "Awesome. I've dreamed of playing for Indiana, I think I'll sign that soon!"
"Psst, hey kid, U. of Michigan needs a good defensive tackle. We want to offer you this beautiful contract to use your name, image, and likeness for an extra $###### . Of course we really need you to be enrolled at Michigan." "Awesome, I've dreamed of playing for Michigan..."
Well, I'd hope you were right. I just don't think that will prove out.People right now are donating to NIL to buy players for their team.
If players are bought and signed by teams directly then what is the incentive for fans to donate to NIL unless they were actually wanting to use their name, image or likeness? The buying players incentive goes away and thus NIL might return to what it actually means
i know we can't keep them from getting paid but can't we tighten up the transfer rules?
If there were contracts, I would think it could or at least should include a number of years.Well, I'd hope you were right. I just don't think that will prove out.
The incentive for fans, is to still make it a bidding war and get better players for their school. Same as always. Someone making money on contract from the school won't change it. Only if, like the NFL or NBA, the movement of players was restricted.
Then maybe outside incentives won't matter as much.
You sound like some of the shitty places I used to work at.i know we can't keep them from getting paid but can't we tighten up the transfer rules?
Attending school is one thing. Playing for a team is another.I can see the legal problem. How can you prevent a kid from pursuing his education (heh...) however he sees fit.
Still, there's got to be ways around it. Schools NOW can make their own transfer criteria on accepting or not accepting students. Why can't they do it collectively?
The FTC just announced that Non Compete Agreements are no longer enforcable in the workplace.Attending school is one thing. Playing for a team is another.
I believe rules can be established for participation in a sport - must be academically qualified and making progress toward a degree and commit, per an athletic CONTRACT, that they stay at least X number of years.
Schools should have no say in NIL. None. The system set up now is so corrupt, the schools are basically managing NIL. That was never the intent.
There are things the NCAA, or super conferences, can do legally to stop this free agency. They're just scared to do it.
So, the FTC has the power of the court system now?The FTC just announced that Non Compete Agreements are no longer enforcable in the workplace.
I understand the difference but it is an interesting precedent.
This is all heading to employment contracts with x number of years.The FTC just announced that Non Compete Agreements are no longer enforcable in the workplace.
I understand the difference but it is an interesting precedent.
Saw that. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand how the FTC can just make a proclamation like that.The FTC just announced that Non Compete Agreements are no longer enforcable in the workplace.
I understand the difference but it is an interesting precedent.
Non competes have regularly lost legal challenges. Virtually unenforceable on their faceWhether the FTC has the power to do this will be decided in court
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/ftc-issues-final-rule-banning-most-non-compete-agreements#:~:text=On%20April%2023%2C%202024%2C%20the,non%2Dcompete%20provisions%20of%20“senior
Which is totally unconstitutional.Courts tend to defer to regulations as well as law.
When it comes to employment, yes. But we're talking about it in a different way here.Non competes have regularly lost legal challenges. Virtually unenforceable on their face
that would have saved recker from a semester at arizona lolThe only example I could think of for a Non compete is the old Big 10 rule where you had to sit out a year if you transferred intra conference. That would probably illegal under this new rule.
Non-competes are common in sales and are designed to protect the company from the salesperson taking clients. If your product or service is not good enough to overcome a salesperson representing your competition…that is on you.This touches close to home for me.... Non-competes are all over the broadcast industry for management, sales and on--air "talent"...... I have many friends in the industry who have battled against or for a non-compete and I've personally been involved in four non-compete situations... Attorney were involved in each one and while only one of my cases ended up in court (most rarely do end up in court) the negotiations and court cases basically ended up lasting almost as long as the non-compete periods in the contracts!!
Two were on my behalf. and the other two I was challenging an employee who had signed a employment agreement which happened to include a non-compete. I all cases the non-competes covered not only a set period of time but a radius of "x" number of miles from where our stations signal could be received.... (that's key regardless of industry...if they'er leaving to work outside of your companies primary business territitory then it's next to impossilbe to stop them.
Based on my experience, I don't think the courts would ever completely side with the FTC... I don't know the details of what the FTC calls a non-compete but I'd bet there's no way they get everything they want after the ruling... and they shouldn't. There are places were non-competes are needed and fair.
Non-competes are common in sales and are designed to protect the company from the salesperson taking clients. If your product or service is not good enough to overcome a salesperson representing your competition…that is on you.
On air talent has the right to earn a living in the market they choose to live in. If you can’t keep them…that again is on you.
(I don’t mean you personally)