I can't believe I'm the only one who appreciates this reference from one of the pinnacles of American cinema.
UNLV QB is leaving the program immediately due to the school not withholding NIL commitments
- Thread starter CYaeger
- Start date
I can't believe I'm the only one who appreciates this reference from one of the pinnacles of American cinema.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting argument.
The financial/NIL part is completely separated from the university, has to be by rule. The agreement with the university is, you participate as a part of the football program, we‘ll pay your tuition/room/board. So if the player reneges on their part (I’m not playing football for you any more), the school would seem to be on solid ground taking away their scholarship/financial aid.
In this particular case, though, if the player is simply taking his redshirt year (which he’s allowed, although the player electing to use it rather than the program might be a gray area), he’d still technically be a part of the program - as long as he attended practices/meetings and was a participant. The open question for that is, why would a program allow such a player to be an active participant in the program when their stated intent is to leave for a different school once the season is over?
I think Sluka is kind of playing that part smart: he’s not “quitting” the program, he’s saying he’ll take his redshirt year, which sort of puts the onus on UNLV as far as living up to their scholarship offer; but his stated intention to go to a different program next year complicates how much UNLV even wants him to be involved the rest of this season. If they kick him out, they still are bound by the scholarship agreement; he’s just said he wants his redshirt year, he hasn’t said he’s quitting the program at this moment.
Sure, I’d agree with that except the NIL stuff isn't ran through the school.
It’s a third party collective, so there would be no breach on UNLVs part. You can argue that UNLV did have a part, but I’m guessing technically, as far as paperwork and legality comes into play, they didn’t.
I very much agree. The way I look at it is that the NCAA benefited for a long time from players not being "employees." They didn't get paid, but the NCAA still got to set rules, some of which were reasonable and some of which were not. Now, the NCAA and schools are experiencing all of the downsides of players not officially being "employees," because of the legislation and court rulings. Despite the athletes getting paid, the only thing close to a contract that athletes sign with the school is scholarship documents, so the school and NCAA can't require much of anything of athletes, thus setting up the Wild West we're in right now.
I've always thought the end game of all this has to be some kind of collective bargaining, and I feel like this situation just confirms that.
Unless he’s hurt, a redshirt needs to be mutually agreed upon IMO.
This would be essentially tendering your resignation and giving 2 weeks. You are not entitled to the 2 weeks, you can be fired immediately and no benefits need to be given if you willingly resign.
If these players want to be treated as professionals, treat them as professionals. Fine them for being late to meetings, fine them for skipping practices, release them if they don’t play up to the expectations the coaches have.
I’m not anti-paying players, but they can’t have only the good parts and none of the bad parts of being professionals.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Well, see, I don’t know the rules around redshirts. Is it required to be agreed on? It seems like it is - I seriously doubt a player can just say, “I’m taking my redshirt this season, Coach, you’ll have to do without me,” but I don’t know if that’s codified anywhere.
Like I said, this could be a gray area that Sluka is trying to exploit, which - if it fits into the allowable procedures - is actually pretty smart.
Not that I agree with it: this whole NIL/sorta employees-sorta not CFB world isn’t much fun, but I can see what he’s trying to do.
Like I said, this could be a gray area that Sluka is trying to exploit, which - if it fits into the allowable procedures - is actually pretty smart.
Not that I agree with it: this whole NIL/sorta employees-sorta not CFB world isn’t much fun, but I can see what he’s trying to do.
Except they knew they didn't have a legal leg to stand on without an anti trust exemption that would allow them to make decisions and negotiate matters happening off the field of play for everyone.
The instant players filed suit in federal court challenging the NCAA, they knew it was basically over.
They should have named their NIL after Tark, he never had a problem paying players. **** UNLV
NCAA could easily have gone to Congress looking for this and got it. Almost every state has a big university that would want it.
"It's what's best for our student athletes"
Bingo. I’m guessing a high percebtage of these big school collectives’ revenue streams are not stable. They’re relying on a couple big donors to come through with big bucks to fulfill obligations. If 1 donor reneges, well they have problems.
That’s why I think the We Will Collective is really strong honestly. It’s run like a stable business. They forecast annual budgets months in advance based on recurring revenue streams, so there’s very little risk of defaulting on commitments. As opposed to relying on the whims of a handful of wealthy individuals
He’s been on a heater for the past couple of weeks and will just keep doubling and tripling down.
The dad is claiming it was $88K btw. Not sure that’s accurate, but that’s what he said.
Right, which is why the NCAA seriously misplayed everything. And it's also why a players' association is necessary for that collective bargaining.
If things stay as they are, you are correct...making players employees does nothing to solve NIL issues.
Making players employees might help the NCAA in getting states to relax the NIL statutes (from the NCAA perspective) to allow the NCAA to institute limits/controls on NIL, or it might be of some benefit if the NCAA were to ever directly challenge the NIL statues in court.
A number of politicians have already expressed concern with how NIL is playing out, and are calling for regulation. California is in the process of putting an NIL "transparency" bill in place over gender equity concerns. I expect more NIL legislation in the future.
For the NCAA, I guess it comes down to whether making players employees helps or hinders the position that the NCAA and their member schools want to have as they present their side when NIL legislation is debated.
I was actually at the game this weekend and he didn't look good at all. People around me complained that "this guy cannot play". One guy told his wife "we paid him and he cannot play". His wife asked "how much?" and he replied "A LOT".
IIRC Sam Hartman got 500k in NIL.
I can see that NIL will be formalized in the future with more professional approach: play, perform or pushed out.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,737
- 33,751
- 113
I'd argue that the product isn't a competitive game, it's a winning program. Nebraska, over the last decade, has lost a ton of competitive games, but their consumers have made it clear that they don't want that. They want to win.
Iowa, under Kirk, is in competitive games more often than not, and a sizable number of their consumers are absolutely ready for a change.
Making players employees also can bring contracts into play. You could have multi-year contracts and/or financial penalties that could prevent this situation from happening.
Keep in mind there is an injunction to the FTC’s attempt to outlaw non-competes. If non-competes remain legal, they could employed in contracts.
All that said, the NCAA is, stupidly imo, still trying to prevent athletes from attaining employee status.
They are top 25 in the coaches poll, but you are right they are still a long shot. In the end what matters is the CFP poll and that doesn’t come out for a bit.
