It has always been this way.
Rex Chapman shared he was making more money in college than the NBA at one point: "I took a pay cut to leave school"
https://www.basketballnetwork.net/co...a-at-one-point
There are only so many slots to fill.
Printable View
It has always been this way.
Rex Chapman shared he was making more money in college than the NBA at one point: "I took a pay cut to leave school"
https://www.basketballnetwork.net/co...a-at-one-point
There are only so many slots to fill.
Yes but they are actively tearing down all of the restrictions that kept athletes from jumping from team to team, under the guise of "protecting their ability to make money off of their names"Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
Eventually you'll have players jumping teams mid-season.. your school lose and ruin their national championship hopes? Just jump to Michigan before the playoff starts...
Is this clickbait? Has the money always been there under the table? Yes! Have athletes been lured from lower programs by cash? Yes! But they had to sit out one year. And today an average player on the bench can receive cash incentives like a $75K truck in some programs with NIL money. Also, a player that washed out at another program didn't get paid $45K for a spring semester tryout funded by NIL contributions. Sorry, it hasn't always been like your example. Only the very best of the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
Thats like saying people didn't find gasoline expensive when it went from .25 cents to .33 cents.
The lure of under the table money was more than enough to make players sit out a year.
Here is the point, none of the top paying programs today are going to be any more talented than they were 40 years ago. The money is there more than ever but it is essentially no more attractive than what past players received.
The top paying programs are not going to be any more talented and the low paying programs are not going to be any less talented than before.
This right here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxmc1023
There needs to be a 1 year sit rule on the other side of the portal. This will fix most of the issues with NIL/Portal.
Call it the SUC rule (for them) Still Under Contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
That will probably not meet the US Supreme Court concept that nothing should abridge the athlete's ability to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
It might.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
If they are paying NIL to come over they are paying NIL to sit.
No loss of ability to make money.
Not so different from a business (a university) not hiring till you have a degree. Does that abridge an individual's ability to make money?
You are completely missing the concept set out by the Supreme Court when they ruled that athletes may be paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
Head in sand routine may work on RP but will not work in the courts, especially with a constitutionally protected right.
But post on.
Adapt or die
If they are getting paid they are getting paid!Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
What is the issue you think they (SC) have with athletes "actually" (check in hand) getting paid?
They will pay absolutely no attention to the nuances of a RP junkie sitting in Abbeville Louisiana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
Of course they won't, you said "they ruled that athletes may be paid" I'm asking you, what about "paid to sit" violates "they ruled that athletes may be paid"?Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunVic
NIL and the Portal are 2 separate issues. Modifying the Portal rules doesn't violate any court ruling nor does it affect the player's ability to receive compensation for their name, image or likeness.
Placing a 1 year sit rule will make other collectives think twice in paying money for players to sit. That player is still receiving NIL payments from their current school collective if other collectives refuse to pay him to sit.
This idea is not new. MANY FBS coaches have suggested we need to put a sit rule on the Portal, including many P5 coaches.
All I was talking about was anything like the one year sit out period would not pass muster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
While I hate to agree with Vic, the Supreme Court has basically said that they won't allow any rule that hinders a student athlete's ability to make money off of their NIL. I know you're saying "well they can still get paid to sit out a year if the team wants them that bad", but the athletes will argue that the offers they received were negatively impacted by the sit-out rule, and therefore that rule impeded their ability make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
It can be inferred from the initial ruling by the Supreme Court that ANY restrictions placed by NCAA or any conference, etc. which abridges a players right to earn money will be stricken. Making a player sit and maybe give up a year of eligibility will certainly abridge their unequivocal right to make money and it is believed by this poster would be struck down by the US Supreme Court if any attempted to implement such a restriction.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
Not sure why anyone hates to agree with Vic, considering that he is right 99% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxmc1023
since athletes now are essentially professional contractors, could a University, in the scholarship offer, insert a non-compete clause OR a similar clause be included in the NIL contract that is offered by the Collective or Business?
That may pass muster under the US Supreme Court ruling as it becomes an agreement by the athlete as opposed to a restriction or limitation imposed by a third party without the consent or assent of the athlete.Quote:
Originally Posted by TunaboatCaptain
It seems more like more of a non-compete issue than a "may be paid" issue.
SCOTUS has greatly weakened the non-compete clause and FTC wants to virtually ban it.
Non-compete clauses are persona non gratis generally by the courts so even that may be unenforceable. Because it is received in connection with a payment it may have a better chance of enforcement. More of an issue may be the applicable territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
From the article...Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunJack55
Under this rule, if we had a sit rule on the other side of the portal for 1st time transfers, it would not be a problem. This would have helped with ZC.Quote:
At the crux of the lawsuit is the NCAA’s “discretionary” waiver process for transfer student-athletes, which allows some student-athletes to participate immediately with their new teams if they can meet certain criteria. The lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment that the transfer rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and an injunction that would prevent the NCAA from denying waivers under this rule.
However, the court’s decision and the agreement between the parties, now allow for any student-athlete who has transferred more than once and has not been granted a waiver by the NCAA to be immediately eligible to play.
Exactly, but unfortunately, they are tied together because without the change in transfer rules the issues with buying players specifically from G5 programs wouldn't be impactful as it is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
Going back to Turbine's post saying that this has always been an issue with Top athletes getting paid under the table and there will always be players left in the portal, is misleading. Yes, there were a number left in the portal for a reason and those athletes may have baggage amongst other concerns. The problem the G5 faces today is many of the top P5 programs are circumventing the yearly scholarship limitation by giving athletes that we are normally recruiting on NIL money plus the stipend. Sometimes the cost per semester is $50K all funded for by outside NIL money. So, they are buying athletes an thinning out the available 3-star and 2-star athletes as preferred walk-ons.