This is why NIL should be a non fear factor.

[Turbine]

They will pay absolutely no attention to the nuances of a RP junkie sitting in Abbeville Louisiana.

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"?

[CajunNation]

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.

[CajunVic]

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"?

All I was talking about was anything like the one year sit out period would not pass muster.

[jaxmc1023]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[CajunVic]

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.

Not sure why anyone hates to agree with Vic, considering that he is right 99% of the time.

[TunaboatCaptain]

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?

[CajunVic]

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.

[Turbine]

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.

[CajunVic]

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.

[CajunJack55]

https://www.troutman.com/insights/tr...ity-rules.html

Adapt or die

[CajunNation]

https://www.troutman.com/insights/tr...ity-rules.html

Adapt or die

From the article...

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.

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.