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?).
Guys leaving today
- Thread starter Jssanto
- Start date
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.
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?
The best thing would be player contracts. It would stop the transfers tidal waive as the universities could give 1-5 yr contracts.
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.
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.
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.
I’d guess players would have a school contract (when revenue sharing starts) + NIL, so they’re paid like any other pro athlete.
The contracts would probably have buyouts to facilitate transfers — big school can buyout the contract a player has with small school in order to sign them. Depends what the players negotiate and the size of the school contract vs NIL. If school contracts are small vs NIL, the school contract won’t have much teeth. Regardless, school contracts would settle down the transfer madness to some extent.
I don’t follow the NIL and rev share developments closely at all, so I’m just thinking out loud how it might work.
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?
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?
I don't see the bidding going away. The donors that want to buy players will either give to athletic departments to pay for contracts, or give to collectives for NIL.
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..."
Last edited:
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
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.
It looks like the transfer rules will probably be going the other way - less rules.
I don't think it has been instituted yet but I read an article where the DOJ wanted players to be able to transfer EVERY year if they so wished.
What the bottom line is, is there are virtually no rules and it is a total clusterF.
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?
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?
If there were contracts, I would think it could or at least should include a number of years.
Maybe I am just too optimistic that competitive balance could be addressed
You sound like some of the shitty places I used to work at.
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.
All this banter says one thing to me and that today's college football sucks
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.
So, the FTC has the power of the court system now?
Anyway, that is interesting. May have some effect on what Uni's try to do.
This is all heading to employment contracts with x number of years.
Saw that. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand how the FTC can just make a proclamation like that.
Seems like a law would have to be passed to outlaw them.
Whether the FTC has the power to do this will be decided in court
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights...0the,non%2Dcompete%20provisions%20of%20“senior
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights...0the,non%2Dcompete%20provisions%20of%20“senior
Non competes have regularly lost legal challenges. Virtually unenforceable on their face
When it comes to employment, yes. But we're talking about it in a different way here.
Professional sports players cannot just ditch their contract to play for another team.
The 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.
that would have saved recker from a semester at arizona lol
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.
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)
Your first sentence is correct, kinda. There's more involved than that and it's not cut and dried... each situation has unique circumstances.
Everything after that, I disagree...
Again, this isn't new territory for me. If they've signed a non-compete no one is stopping them from making a living in their chosen profession as long as it's not a direct competitor within their company's main territory of business... they just can't do it until the non-compete expires and those rarely last longer than a year. If a sales person feels his product is no longer good enough then his decision to work there was on him, it' isn't on the company who might have been taking a chance on hiring him in the first place.... I was on both sides of the business, sales/management and production/talent and as for talent, they are, in some cases, the product and if they are any good at all they have signed an agreement for a period of time.... it's all written out and they know the consequences of breaking the agreement....
Again, I've been on both sides and to think that outlawing non-competes without a lot of stipulations is ridiculous and short sighted.... But, since we're talking about a decision made by a government agency full of people who have probably never worked in the real business world i'm not surprised.... Soooo....
