News Article: Task Force To Big-Money Boosters: NIL Sanctions Could Be Coming

Guido

All-SEC
Feb 24, 2017
1,274
1,095
187
I don't know why the courts would treat a new private entity any differently from the NCAA (which to my knowledge is also a private entity).

Good question on the right to work states. I don't know for sure, but am guessing the answer is yes. Mainly because you have to be a member of the NFLPA to play in the NFL, and I'd be surprised if none of the 32 NFL teams were in RTW states.

While I've slept with one for over 30 years, I'm not a lawyer myself. Any Legal Eagles on the board have a more informed answer?
I googled my question and saw some interesting answers. I don't think you can be compelled to join the union in RTW states. Of course they all do, i'm sure the internal pressure to join would be tremendous.It's an interesting question. Anyway i found a link that might help. https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/47/
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 4Q Basket Case

JDCrimson

All-American
Feb 12, 2006
3,750
1,905
187
49
If the NIL deals were legitimate then this would all work itself out imo. But right now it's a quid pro quo for signing with a particular school.

The players don't actually appear to be endorsing anything close to the value they are receiving. Virtually all the NILs are sham transactions.

What is the true value of Bryce Young's NIL if he is playing for Duke rather than Alabama?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Nov 8, 2004
7,480
6,582
237
Tuscaloosa
If the NIL deals were legitimate then this would all work itself out imo. But right now it's a quid pro quo for signing with a particular school.

The players don't actually appear to be endorsing anything close to the value they are receiving. Virtually all the NILs are sham transactions.

What is the true value of Bryce Young's NIL if he is playing for Duke rather than Alabama?
I agree in principle. But if somebody wants to shell out money with no realistic expectation they will see it again, that's their prerogative.

In purely economic terms, they're not even really foregoing a return. They're just assigning a greater net present value to (1) the uncertain possibility of, at some point in the future, feeling the emotions involved in winning, than they do to (2) the certainty of spending money today in order to create that possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

Guido

All-SEC
Feb 24, 2017
1,274
1,095
187
I agree in principle. But if somebody wants to shell out money with no realistic expectation they will see it again, that's their prerogative.

In purely economic terms, they're not even really foregoing a return. They're just assigning a greater net present value to (1) the uncertain possibility of, at some point in the future, feeling the emotions involved in winning, than they do to (2) the certainty of spending money today in order to create that possibility.
Or maybe they're just rich boosters paying for players, TAM comes to mind. Economic return is not a concern here for a lot of NIL deals. https://www.rollbamaroll.com/2022/5/4/23056150/coming-to-a-campus-near-you-the-nil-extortion-racket
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

Bama9001

2nd Team
Sep 26, 2017
307
174
62
Since the rules on those things (booster contacts, booster inducements) didn't change it makes sense. However, if there are new rules handed down I don't think attempts to sanction for the past will withstand the lawsuits.
I've been worried about this. They aren't new rules...they were there long before Logan Young and TennStud. Boosters have never been allowed to provide financial incentives for players to attend a certain school. The way I understand the rules just about any top program right now could be hammered back into compliance.

The NCAA doesn't need proof, never has. If they believe the NIL deal was a recruiting inducement you are guilty. The two questions really are (1) does the NCAA have the stones to do it, and (2) which schools would they choose to make an example of (I nominate TA&M, USC, and of course Tennessee and Auburn).

I don't see that in any way in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling. Those boosters can still give the NIL deal and make it as big as they want. However, if the NCAA determines it was a recruiting incentive the school will pay the price. The kid can keep his money and then transfer to a school that's not on probation.

The scariest part is that they've just handed the NCAA another rule that they can apply in an arbitrary and capricious way. Just as they always have.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,103
27,436
262
Mountainous Northern California
I've been worried about this. They aren't new rules...they were there long before Logan Young and TennStud. Boosters have never been allowed to provide financial incentives for players to attend a certain school. The way I understand the rules just about any top program right now could be hammered back into compliance.

The NCAA doesn't need proof, never has. If they believe the NIL deal was a recruiting inducement you are guilty. The two questions really are (1) does the NCAA have the stones to do it, and (2) which schools would they choose to make an example of (I nominate TA&M, USC, and of course Tennessee and Auburn).

I don't see that in any way in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling. Those boosters can still give the NIL deal and make it as big as they want. However, if the NCAA determines it was a recruiting incentive the school will pay the price. The kid can keep his money and then transfer to a school that's not on probation.

The scariest part is that they've just handed the NCAA another rule that they can apply in an arbitrary and capricious way. Just as they always have.
If they go overboard with it then there will be consequences, including the potential for a number of schools to leave the NCAA.

That said, there seem to be a few schools tampering with athletes not in the portal - with Oklahoma and USC among those schools (allegedly).

Others have started "collectives" to promise certain amounts of money to any signee.

Others appear to have engaged in bidding for the services of athletes.

And so on.

There are problems to be reigned in, but leave it to the NCAA to screw that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ols

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Nov 8, 2004
7,480
6,582
237
Tuscaloosa
That's the point, though - these aren't really NIL deals, they're simply legal ways that boosters can pay players.
Agreed. And what blind person couldn’t see this coming?

I originally anticipated it being in the form of no-show jobs and greater than market fees for public appearances — like $100K (or more) to show up at a car dealership on a promotional day.

The current practices just dispense with the window dressing and get straight to the point — paying the player.
 

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
6,858
3,553
212
43
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
That's the point, though - these aren't really NIL deals, they're simply legal ways that boosters can pay players.
True and everyone saw this coming. Here on TF, we all talked about these types of scenarios in the lead up to NIL. It was crazy for NIL to happen but the NCAA did place any restrictions on it so, it is their own stupid fault. To turn around and make this retroactive is just ridiculous.

I don't know if anyone around Bama has done anything that could be considered a rules violation but, if they have Bama better lawyer up and not even talk to the NCAA (just like Auburn did with Cam). The schools that try to work with the NCAA are the ones who get punished. Lawyer up and shut-up, force the NCAA to show proof that they do not have.

The day the NCAA dies cannot get her soon enough.
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
34,601
16,433
187
Vinings, ga., usa
True and everyone saw this coming. Here on TF, we all talked about these types of scenarios in the lead up to NIL. It was crazy for NIL to happen but the NCAA did place any restrictions on it so, it is their own stupid fault. To turn around and make this retroactive is just ridiculous.

I don't know if anyone around Bama has done anything that could be considered a rules violation but, if they have Bama better lawyer up and not even talk to the NCAA (just like Auburn did with Cam). The schools that try to work with the NCAA are the ones who get punished. Lawyer up and shut-up, force the NCAA to show proof that they do not have.

The day the NCAA dies cannot get her soon enough.
We would still need some governing body. Otherwise it could get even worse. Defund the NCAA is a nice idea, but think it thru first
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Nov 8, 2004
7,480
6,582
237
Tuscaloosa
The day the NCAA dies cannot get her soon enough.
It's already effectively dead. But with the combination of free transfer and unrestricted NIL, we've gotten a good idea of what a totally ungoverned college football world would look like, and nobody likes it.

I have no love for the NCAA. But no governance at all is worse. There needs to be a replacement ready to go when the NCAA is taken out behind the woodshed and put out of its misery.

Edit: DKR beat me to it by about 30 seconds.
 

lowend

1st Team
Feb 20, 2005
914
439
82
I don't think these new rules will hold up in court. The best case for the NCAA to survive is to get out of enforcement, become a rules congress for on-the-field play, and run tournaments for non-football sports.
 

GP for Bama

All-American
Feb 3, 2011
4,075
604
137
I've been worried about this. They aren't new rules...they were there long before Logan Young and TennStud. Boosters have never been allowed to provide financial incentives for players to attend a certain school. The way I understand the rules just about any top program right now could be hammered back into compliance.

The NCAA doesn't need proof, never has. If they believe the NIL deal was a recruiting inducement you are guilty. The two questions really are (1) does the NCAA have the stones to do it, and (2) which schools would they choose to make an example of (I nominate TA&M, USC, and of course Tennessee and Auburn).

I don't see that in any way in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling. Those boosters can still give the NIL deal and make it as big as they want. However, if the NCAA determines it was a recruiting incentive the school will pay the price. The kid can keep his money and then transfer to a school that's not on probation.

The scariest part is that they've just handed the NCAA another rule that they can apply in an arbitrary and capricious way. Just as they always have.
Tennessee and A&M are the obvious abusers of using NIL to get players to come to their school.
 

bamamc1

All-American
Oct 24, 2011
4,374
1,691
187
Haleyville, AL
I hope I'm wrong but I think this current situation may be what leads CNS into considering retirement a little earlier than we might expect. With UT supposedly giving an upcoming QB in the next class an $8,000,000 deal, how will this be sustainable? The boosters forking out the cash will definitely want this kid on the field early. What if he isn't ready? What will the guy think that wins the job and doesn't have a deal that large? This is crazy.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
31,536
18,892
287
52
Four all beef patties, 6 feet under: the McCPR
We would still need some governing body. Otherwise it could get even worse. Defund the NCAA is a nice idea, but think it thru first
The problem with the NCAA was that they were just as two-faced as any sort of partisan-type organization could possibly be WHILE CLAIMING AND PRETENDING to be impartial. That was the problem some of us had with it - not that we don't need some sort of oversight (this is kinda common sense as your post makes that point clear), but we need something resembling CONSISTENT oversight. Jerry Tarkanian's eloquent insult wasn't exactly wrong: "The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky, they're going to give Cleveland State another year of probation."

There was never ANYTHING resembling consistency with those goofs. In 1992, they sanctioned THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA athletic programs across the board for violations that occurred on the track team. They stripped the women's golf team of a national championship won four years earlier and banned them from post-season competition for a year...yes, you're reading it correctly: they punished the women's golf team for violations committed by the track and field teams. Oh - and the track and field teams got NO ADDITIONAL sanctions while their basketball team was immediately ineligible for the tournament for one year.

I mean, who was giving oversight to the NCAA in this thing?

(And does anyone here REALLY believe that if it had been, say, Texas or Oklahoma caught with the level of SMU scandal that they would have administered the kill shot they gave that school? Everyone knows better).

Maybe retire that playoff committee and put them in charge of oversight.
It wouldn't be any worse than what we've seen given they have to send folks out of the room.