Winger wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:18 pm
Guess we succeeded in hiding him from the NBA but not college ball.
Seems like the golf cart accident hid him from the NBA more than CTL.
Moderators: UAdevil, JMarkJohns
Winger wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:18 pm
Guess we succeeded in hiding him from the NBA but not college ball.
For sure.
I would love to hear Ed O'bannon's thoughts on what he wrought.84Cat wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:07 pmOver 1000 kids were in the portal on day 2 of it opening. We need a salary cap for starters. No one should be getting $3 mil to play college ballazcat49 wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:03 pm We need a new name for college athletics that fits the time and this era. The professional league of university sports? Does that work.
Whatever it is, it sucks hairy Bigfoot balls
We're going to have more transfers. The link is an ad for his website
Damn... I was hoping to read that as "Someone who said they are transferring is maybe not"84Cat wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 6:16 pmWe're going to have more transfers. The link is an ad for his website
Lots of rumors about Bradley. Hope it’s not so. That would be a huge loss84Cat wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 6:16 pmWe're going to have more transfers. The link is an ad for his website
He’s our most important returning player, imo. If he leaves, hopes for a B12 title leave with him.
From my guy, Brian Dutcher, head coach at SDSU on February 20, 2025.AZCatGirl wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:49 pm Scheer makes a good point. NIL is bad, but agents just turn it even more into a circus.
BingoFishclamps wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:05 am The whole issue with having them sign contracts to be paid players, in the eyes of the NCAA and every conference commissioner, is that it brings collective bargaining along with it. They definitely don't want them to have a players union.
There would have to be some kind of demonstrable benefit to the student athlete so that the NCAA wouldn't get trounced (again) in court when someone files suit.Alieberman wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:19 am Is there any chance of bringing back the 1 year of sitting if you transfer rule... or has that ship totally sailed?
To me, that would seem like the way to get a handle on this yearly free-for-all
If it's applied to coaches (head and assistants) and AD's, then MAYBE a "fairness" case could be made...Chicat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:22 amThere would have to be some kind of demonstrable benefit to the student athlete so that the NCAA wouldn't get trounced (again) in court when someone files suit.Alieberman wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:19 am Is there any chance of bringing back the 1 year of sitting if you transfer rule... or has that ship totally sailed?
To me, that would seem like the way to get a handle on this yearly free-for-all
The argument is that if an engineering student can pick up and transfer to another school that has a program better aligned with his or her interests, why shouldn’t an athlete be able to?
His bill would federalize NIL standards through the NCAA (currently vary by state) - but as far as I can tell, does not stipulate specifics of those standards...84Cat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:39 am Will the legislation that Ted Cruz is proposing help with this?
I feel for the transfers - most leaving because current situation hasn't met their needs/expectations. Multiple entries mean both failure and opportunity, but the contingency has to be daunting....dmjcat wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 1:45 pmIf he is all we could afford and the best available pg, then Yes.
This is no longer amateur sports, everything is transactional. Feelings don't enter into the equation.
OTOH, maybe Henri and Kerr can become an "Estonian package deal"Leave your stepping stones behind, something calls for you
Forget the dead you’ve left, they will not follow you
The vagabond who’s rapping at your door
Is standing in the clothes that you once wore
Strike another match, go start anew
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue
would the ncaa be required to provide employment benefits, or the schools? regardless of which party carries the burden, my guess is that they'll finesse T&Cs so that athletes are "independent contractors" or some gig economy-adjacent bs to get around it. but that would obv open up a whole new can of worms, not just legally but with what the "independent" part of the revenue sharing agreement implies. talk about a slippery slope.Chicat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:07 amBingoFishclamps wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:05 am The whole issue with having them sign contracts to be paid players, in the eyes of the NCAA and every conference commissioner, is that it brings collective bargaining along with it. They definitely don't want them to have a players union.
The NCAA would rather have 50% of the players be traveling mercenaries than have to give benefits to 100% of the players as active employees.
i can't see the ncaa attempting to do this. look at how litigation-averse they've become. but...Alieberman wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:19 am Is there any chance of bringing back the 1 year of sitting if you transfer rule... or has that ship totally sailed?
To me, that would seem like the way to get a handle on this yearly free-for-all
... i believe there are active bills in both chambers of congress. the house & senate probably have far more pressing matters to deal with these days, but i imagine that NIL, revenue sharing, and fair play guardrails would likely have broad bipartisan support. but as proposed legislation languishes in committee or whatever, i wonder if college sports will reach a point of no return at some point - programs, conferences, and non-revenue sports decimated; outside actors growing far too powerful; wealth and control consolidated irreversibly between the big 2. maybe not even the big 2, but the "have" programs from the SEC & B1G (and maybe not so much among the current have-not schools like rutgers, nebraska, vandy, etc.)84Cat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:39 am Will the legislation that Ted Cruz is proposing help with this?
they're allowed to work on campus, if playing away games as a university employee & student-athlete can be considered on-campus workDjcat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 1:06 pm They also have to address foreign students who technically cannot work unless it’s related to their degrees. Also, it’s limited to just a year or two. No way they can make exceptions without affecting immigration laws and that’s very sensitive right now
i'm sure you can use your imagination and understand that the benefits of uniform NIL & revenue sharing standards over the current patchwork, state-by-state framework aren't just for the benefit of fans and institutions. right now many athletes put themselves at risk by entering NIL agreements that aren't contractually binding. i don't believe there's even a requirement for agreements to be in writing, which is why you have guys like sluka at UNLV not getting paid. my impression is that many schools don't - or maybe can't - offer adequate support to all their athletes because everything is a one-off deal that deserves its own attention.pc in NM wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 1:32 pm "Fair Play Guardrails" - anyone care to take a shot at what these would/should include?
The 'fair play" seems to be primarily focused on us poor fans...
... not sure what, exactly, that means for student-athletes in these discussions.
Good points all, and I'd support unification of standards (and an oversight/enforcement function, too).dirtbags wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 2:26 pmi'm sure you can use your imagination and understand that the benefits of uniform NIL & revenue sharing standards over the current patchwork, state-by-state framework aren't just for the benefit of fans and institutions. right now many athletes put themselves at risk by entering NIL agreements that aren't contractually binding. i don't believe there's even a requirement for agreements to be in writing, which is why you have guys like sluka at UNLV not getting paid. my impression is that many schools don't - or maybe can't - offer adequate support to all their athletes because everything is a one-off deal that deserves its own attention.pc in NM wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 1:32 pm "Fair Play Guardrails" - anyone care to take a shot at what these would/should include?
The 'fair play" seems to be primarily focused on us poor fans...
... not sure what, exactly, that means for student-athletes in these discussions.
codifying NIL terms would also keep athletes from being exploited in deals that unknowingly deceive or de-leverage them, like that UF football player who signed an NIL deal in exchange for a commission on his future NFL earnings for 25 years. or deals that persuade an athlete to sign their likeness and IP rights into exclusivity, even after college. or NIL deals disguised as loans or are rife with predatory fee structures.
monitoring, reporting, and compliance around NIL could also provide a degree of transparency to help athletes determine their fair market value when being solicited; and since agents are going to be a thing, it could ensure that outside parties are acting in the best interest of the athlete.
even ideas being spitballed like a transfer development fee would indirectly help spread the wealth with funding for salaries / scholarships, services, and facilities for athletes at the departing institution. also, don't forget that NIL impacts high school talent too, and the exploitation can flow upstream as well. the current laissez-faire system isn't working.
Glad I buckled up!
Big man?
How about buyouts?pc in NM wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:46 amIf it's applied to coaches (head and assistants) and AD's, then MAYBE a "fairness" case could be made...Chicat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:22 amThere would have to be some kind of demonstrable benefit to the student athlete so that the NCAA wouldn't get trounced (again) in court when someone files suit.Alieberman wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:19 am Is there any chance of bringing back the 1 year of sitting if you transfer rule... or has that ship totally sailed?
To me, that would seem like the way to get a handle on this yearly free-for-all
The argument is that if an engineering student can pick up and transfer to another school that has a program better aligned with his or her interests, why shouldn’t an athlete be able to?
... will never happen.
Who?
Yet again, that requires an employment contract binding the player to a specific school, which will never happen because it opens the door to a players union.Postmaster wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 8:48 pmHow about buyouts?pc in NM wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:46 amIf it's applied to coaches (head and assistants) and AD's, then MAYBE a "fairness" case could be made...Chicat wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:22 amThere would have to be some kind of demonstrable benefit to the student athlete so that the NCAA wouldn't get trounced (again) in court when someone files suit.Alieberman wrote: Tue Apr 01, 2025 7:19 am Is there any chance of bringing back the 1 year of sitting if you transfer rule... or has that ship totally sailed?
To me, that would seem like the way to get a handle on this yearly free-for-all
The argument is that if an engineering student can pick up and transfer to another school that has a program better aligned with his or her interests, why shouldn’t an athlete be able to?
... will never happen.