Should they be

[ThrowBackCat9]

Do you think they should be 2 year NIL contracts??? With almost everyone entering the portal, even on teams that made a deep run, do you think this would work?? Can it work?? Also, a NIL cap like a salary cap???

It would cut down transfers to 1 time per 4 years.

 

[WyleECoyote]

Do you think they should be 2 year NIL contracts??? With almost everyone entering the portal, even on teams that made a deep run, do you think this would work?? Can it work?? Also, a NIL cap like a salary cap???

It would cut down transfers to 1 time per 4 years.

Can't enforce it.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

Can't enforce it.

What rule would it be crossing? I’m genuinely asking, I’m not up to date on all this new stuff.

 

[WyleECoyote]

Its not an NCAA rule its a Congressional rule, especially now with the FTC getting rid of non-compete clauses. But I'm pretty sure I remember them not being allowed to do contracts.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

Its not an NCAA rule its a Congressional rule, especially now with the FTC getting rid of non-compete clauses. But I'm pretty sure I remember them not being allowed to do contracts.

Aren’t they on 1 year deals now? What would be different about 2 year deals?

 

[WyleECoyote]

Aren’t they on 1 year deals now? What would be different about 2 year deals?

I don't understand it either, not a lawyer, but contracts can't lock a kid to a school.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You certainly could have a 2 year agreement for NIL but what would that accomplish. NIL contracts are not contracts for play. In a round about way they are pay for play, but they are between a third party and the athlete for advertising, etc. They have no requirements that the athlete attend a specific school and play a specific sport.

NIL caps are unenforceable. The NCAA can't tell you how much money you can make from selling you NIL.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

You can enforce it by saying "if you transfer, you miss out on the 2nd year of the NIL money".

Structure the NIL deals so that the entice players to stick around. It's not easy to do, because there's so many other angles here (Does the team even want the player for year 2, what if he's injured, etc).. but this is kind of how we will get out of this mess.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I don't understand it either, not a lawyer, but contracts can't lock a kid to a school.

That would violate both NCAA rules and State law.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

You can enforce it by saying "if you transfer, you miss out on the 2nd year of the NIL money".

Structure the NIL deals so that the entice players to stick around. It's not easy to do, because there's so many other angles here (Does the team even want the player for year 2, what if he's injured, etc).. but this is kind of how we will get out of this mess.

If you transfer, you have to pay a percentage of the NIL money collected back.

It’s not like they are really selling their name, image or likeness, they are paid a salary.

Idk how injuries would work out but something has to give.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You can enforce it by saying "if you transfer, you miss out on the 2nd year of the NIL money".

Structure the NIL deals so that the entice players to stick around. It's not easy to do, because there's so many other angles here (Does the team even want the player for year 2, what if he's injured, etc).. but this is kind of how we will get out of this mess.

I think that would violate both NCAA rules and state law.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

That would violate both NCAA rules and State law.

Change the rules/law. It can’t be set in concrete.

There’s too much money in college sports to destroy them to the point of no one wanting to watch. Which they are trending toward.

 

[Hoskins91]

Change the rules/law. It can’t be set in concrete.

There’s too much money in college sports to destroy them to the point of no one wanting to watch. Which they are trending toward.

Not happening.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

You certainly could have a 2 year agreement for NIL but what would that accomplish. NIL contracts are not contracts for play. In a round about way they are pay for play, but they are between a third party and the athlete for advertising, etc. They have no requirements that the athlete attend a specific school and play a specific sport.

NIL caps are unenforceable. The NCAA can't tell you how much money you can make from selling you NIL.

So these players are paid money, just for being players. Reed would make money just by being Reed. Not for playing at UK? They are definitely paid to attend a certain school and to play a certain sport. It’s not a third party when donors are giving money to schools to split up how they see fit. Not for commerials, ads, jerseys or anything.

They can definitely set a cap, change the rules. They aren’t set in stone to never change.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

Not happening.

Why not? Whats the reason or explanation that it can’t happen??

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

That would violate both NCAA rules and State law.

What ones is it violating??? Why can’t they be changed??

 

[Hoskins91]

Why not? Whats the reason or explanation that it can’t happen??

Why do want it to? You’re just accelerating what you are claiming to want to stop…college would just be a worse professional league.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

Why do want it to? You’re just accelerating what you are claiming to want to stop…college would just be a worse professional league.

What exactly am I accelerating that I want to stop? I want transfers every single year to stop. How would that accelerate that?? It’s already a professional league, it became that with players being paid millions.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I think that would violate both NCAA rules and state law.

How does it violate it? If we can give a player a NIL deal.. what is stopp it from being a 2-year deal with provisions that say "On this date, if still enrolled at UK, you will receive x amount of money"..

The laws are going to have to be changed on this soon. It's no longer a student/amatuer scenario. College athletics have changed and that means the rules need to be adjusted. I actually believe this can be done and the colleges will figure out ways to make this a much more stable game again.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

So these players are paid money, just for being players. Reed would make money just by being Reed. Not for playing at UK? They are definitely paid to attend a certain school and to play a certain sport. It’s not a third party when donors are giving money to schools to split up how they see fit. Not for commerials, ads, jerseys or anything.

They can definitely set a cap, change the rules. They aren’t set in stone to never change.

State law specifically says you can't offer money to an athletes in order to recruit and entice the player to attend a school. NIL has value because they are "famous" but NIL contracts aren't tied to attending school. NCAA rules prohibit the same thing.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

How does it violate it? If we can give a player a NIL deal.. what is stopp it from being a 2-year deal with provisions that say "On this date, if still enrolled at UK, you will receive x amount of money"..

The laws are going to have to be changed on this soon. It's no longer a student/amatuer scenario. College athletics have changed and that means the rules need to be adjusted. I actually believe this can be done and the colleges will figure out ways to make this a much more stable game again.

Because state law says you can't offer NIL money to recruit or entice a player to attend a school. That language is certainly an enticement. NCAA rules also prohibit that.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

State law specifically says you can't offer money to an athletes in order to recruit and entice the player to attend a school. NIL has value because they are "famous" but NIL contracts aren't tied to attending school. NCAA rules prohibit the same thing.

So JQ is making 1.5 million just because he’s famous??? He’s not demanding that much money to attend a certain college???

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

What ones is it violating??? Why can’t they be changed??

Anything can be changed but it's pointless to discuss something that doesn't current exist. State law says you can't offer NIL to recruit or entice a player to attend a school. NCAA rules say the same thing. Can those be changed? Of course they can.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

So JQ is making 1.5 million just because he’s famous??? He’s not demanding that much money to attend a certain college???

It doesn't matter why he is being given whatever money he is given. What matters is what the contract requires. The contract will not require him to attend any school.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

Anything can be changed but it's pointless to discuss something that doesn't current exist. State law says you can't offer NIL to recruit or entice a player to attend a school. NCAA rules say the same thing. Can those be changed? Of course they can.

How do things get changed if people don’t discuss it??? It can’t exist if no conversation is made about it.

This was intended for people who might know the rules and what ones it would be breaking. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

It doesn't matter why he is being given whatever money he is given. What matters is what the contract requires. The contract will not require him to attend any school.

So he can sign NiL with Louisville, collect his money and sign with another school? Or would he need to attend Louisville to collect that money?

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Because state law says you can't offer NIL money to recruit or entice a player to attend a school. That language is certainly an enticement. NCAA rules also prohibit that.

Damn.. I mean that's such a grey area, as NIL is used, right NOW, to entire players to attend school. Is a 2-year deal really any different?

But this is to my point... this system is such a mess and has far too much power to the players.. that they either change some of the legality of it, or risk the sport becoming an unwatchable mess.

I really do trust that college athletics, the schools, the NCAA and the courts.. will find some common ground here. Every judge and lawyer attended a school where they likely say in the bleachers and cheered on their team. No one wants to see college athletics be run this way,

But what do I know.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

How do things get changed if people don’t discuss it??? It can’t exist if no conversation is made about it.

This was intended for people who might know the rules and what ones it would be breaking. Sorry for the confusion.

I thought you asked if NIL contracts could tie a player to a school? Under current rules they cannot. I think the rules will ultimately change to something different. What that might look like I don't know. I will throw this out as well. Do we really want boosters directly recruiting and contractually binding players to schools? I think would be a train wreck.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Damn.. I mean that's such a grey area, as NIL is used, right NOW, to entire players to attend school. Is a 2-year deal really any different?

But this is to my point... this system is such a mess and has far too much power to the players.. that they either change some of the legality of it, or risk the sport becoming an unwatchable mess.

I really do trust that college athletics, the schools, the NCAA and the courts.. will find some common ground here. Every judge and lawyer attended a school where they likely say in the bleachers and cheered on their team. No one wants to see college athletics be run this way,

But what do I know.

I think they will too. The difference in your example and a 1 year contract is the one year contract doesn't tie the player to the school. You could have a two year contract that also doesn't tie the player to the school.

 

[chroix]

So he can sign NiL with Louisville, collect his money and sign with another school? Or would he need to attend Louisville to collect that money?

"Similar to the current bylaws, athletes would not be able to transfer mid-year and play for a new school in the same athletic season."

New NCAA transfer portal legislation brings updated rules for grad transfers

Included in changes to NCAA transfer legislation a week ago, grad transfers will now need to enter the portal before their sports' final transfer windows.

www.on3.com

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

I thought you asked if NIL contracts could tie a player to a school? Under current rules they cannot. I think the rules will ultimately change to something different. What that might look like I don't know. I will throw this out as well. Do we really want boosters directly recruiting and contractually binding players to schools? I think would be a train wreck.

Why would boosters become recruiters under 2 year contracts but not 1 year contracts?

Make the second year have a bonus attached if they return.

The rules will definitely change because they simply will have to.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

"Similar to the current bylaws, athletes would not be able to transfer mid-year and play for a new school in the same athletic season."

New NCAA transfer portal legislation brings updated rules for grad transfers

Included in changes to NCAA transfer legislation a week ago, grad transfers will now need to enter the portal before their sports' final transfer windows.

www.on3.com

Too much to sort thru, was hoping someone here could clear up a few questions.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

So he can sign NiL with Louisville, collect his money and sign with another school? Or would he need to attend Louisville to collect that money?

Supposedly you would sign the NIL agreement until you were sure he was enrolled and intended to play at your school. If someone was dumb enough to sign a NIL agreement prior to the kid enrolling at a school, then yes. I don't think those a re signed until it's obvious the kid is going to the school.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I think they will too. The difference in your example and a 1 year contract is the one year contract doesn't tie the player to the school. You could have a two year contract that also doesn't tie the player to the school.

But then isn't the $1mil deal from Kroger to a player, on the premise that they play for said school? If JQ is shopping around NIL deals, aren't those only given to him if he plays for said school?

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

Damn.. I mean that's such a grey area, as NIL is used, right NOW, to entire players to attend school. Is a 2-year deal really any different?

But this is to my point... this system is such a mess and has far too much power to the players.. that they either change some of the legality of it, or risk the sport becoming an unwatchable mess.

I really do trust that college athletics, the schools, the NCAA and the courts.. will find some common ground here. Every judge and lawyer attended a school where they likely say in the bleachers and cheered on their team. No one wants to see college athletics be run this way,

But what do I know.

I hope you're right on this.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Why would boosters become recruiters under 2 year contracts but not 1 year contracts?

Make the second year have a bonus attached if they return.

The rules will definitely change because they simply will have to.

Because if you allow NIL agreements to tie players to schools what is to stop boosters from contacting players directly and recruiting them? The point of the rule is to keep separation between boosters and schools.

 

[H00SIER-Cat]

I thought you asked if NIL contracts could tie a player to a school? Under current rules they cannot. I think the rules will ultimately change to something different. What that might look like I don't know. I will throw this out as well. Do we really want boosters directly recruiting and contractually binding players to schools? I think would be a train wreck.

You're right, but it's a train wreck now.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

But then isn't the $1mil deal from Kroger to a player, on the premise that they play for said school? If JQ is shopping around NIL deals, aren't those only given to him if he plays for said school?

Right. It's just not in the contract. I assume that those contracts aren't actually signed until the kid is enrolled, taking classes, and almost assuredly going to play for the school. It's certainly pay for play, but the contract can't reflect that because it's illegal. A two agreement that can't tie tie the player to school is risky because the player can leave.

 

[ThrowBackCat9]

Because if you allow NIL agreements to tie players to schools what is to stop boosters from contacting players directly and recruiting them? The point of the rule is to keep separation between boosters and schools.

I’m not a smart man and this makes zero sense to me. Players are already tied to the school for 1 year. Why does 2 years change what boosters want to do? Why does 1 year agreements stop boosters from doing what you say they will do under 2 year agreements?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I’m not a smart man and this makes zero sense to me. Players are already tied to the school for 1 year. Why does 2 years change what boosters want to do? Why does 1 year agreements stop boosters from doing what you say they will do under 2 year agreements?

The length of the agreement is not relevant. It's the fact that a NIL contract can't include language that ties a player to a school. No one is forcing NIL agreements to be one year agreements. One year agreements are the norm because you can't use it to tie a player to a school. If you offer a two year NIL agreement, the player can leave after a year and you are still using him and paying him for NIL and he doesn't play for your team anymore. The length of the agreements are voluntary, but who would offer two years under the current law. It wouldn't make sense.