Texas Tech 10 Million Dollar Portal Season

[cydsho]

This is an excerpt from the Dellenger article:

"In the letter, Kessler notes that the “valid business purpose” rule in the settlement “was meant to prohibit NIL collectives from simply receiving donations and paying athletes for play,” it reads. “It does not, however, prohibit a NIL collective from paying athletes itself — not as a marketing agent for others — if the payment is ‘for a valid business purpose’ related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit.”

How in the hell can Kessler justify a non-profit collective paying an athlete to promote or endorse goods and services provided to the general for profit? That was the rationale for the rejection of deals submitted by collectives. Collectives can certainly match up for profit businesses with athletes as Blum is going to do but having a non-profit Collectives directly pay athletes to endorse for profit goods/services is senseless.

Yeah, you don't get to open pandora's box and then try to close it later. That's the whole bleeping point of the f-ing of the story.....

 

[cykadelic2]

Yeah, you don't get to open pandora's box and then try to close it later. That's the whole bleeping point of the f-ing of the story.....

And that is a RevShare cap issue, not a Clearinghouse issue.

 

[cyowa]

LMAO at anyone thinking that any of this is getting put back in the box. Limiting or eliminating NIL would never make it through the courts. This is the new norm. Either embrace it, deal with it, or maybe find a new form of entertainment. The NCAA had their chance to set up a pay structure for players but a bunch of old stubborn white men were too greedy so here we are.

0

 

[cykadelic2]

I’m not sure how they can legally say that a collective can’t give athletes money in exchange for services. I get it that most of what is happening is thinly disguised pay-for-play but I think they are going to find that it’s pretty hard to restrict.

What I had been expecting was that they were going to try to establish a fair market value for these services and disallow deals about that FMV. But if I understand this all correctly, they are trying to go beyond that and just get all of the collectives to shut down for everything other than corporate deals.

NIL endorsement and promotion services provided were clearly intended to be a valid business purpose to for-profit firms under the House rules. Collectives are non-profits so not sure how the collectives think they have a case here without a legit example.

And yeah, this complaint isn’t about FMV.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

NIL endorsement and promotion services provided were clearly intended to be a valid business purpose to for-profit firms under the House rules. Collectives are non-profits so not sure how the collectives think they have a case here without a legit example.

And yeah, this complaint isn’t about FMV.

There are tons of examples of non-profits advertising for business purposes. Every credit union, human service organizations that advertise but call it fundraising, election campaigns, etc.

You can't single out collectives. It's absolutely a business purpose to use star athletes in advertisements to solicit more donations to fund operations. Once the toothpaste was out of the tube it was never going back in. It's over.

 

[cykadelic2]

There are tons of examples of non-profits advertising for business purposes. Every credit union, human service organizations that advertise but call it fundraising, election campaigns, etc.

You can't single out collectives. It's absolutely a business purpose to use star athletes in advertisements to solicit more donations to fund operations. Once the toothpaste was out of the tube it was never going back in. It's over.

ISU/Learfield Collective is exactly going to be doing that as Blum has disclosed. And the compensation dollars for that will be paid to athletes are from the ISU AD RevShare pool since those athletes will be able to use ISU branding/logos.

As described in the second paragraph of the Valid Business Purpose section of the CSC guidance in Dellenger's tweet, there are examples where a collective payment to an athlete would serve a valid business purpose. It's obvious that the collectives don't want to subject themselves to subpoena for Clearinghouse proceedings to arbitrate any disputes in an attempt to circumvent the agreed upon Settlement process.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

ISU/Learfield Collective is exactly going to be doing that as Blum has disclosed. And the compensation dollars for that will be paid to athletes are from the ISU AD RevShare pool since those athletes will be able to use ISU branding/logos.

As described in the second paragraph of the Valid Business Purpose section of the CSC guidance in Dellenger's tweet, there are examples where a collective payment to an athlete would serve a valid business purpose. It's obvious that the collectives don't want to subject themselves to subpoena for Clearinghouse proceedings to arbitrate any disputes in an attempt to circumvent the agreed upon Settlement process.

Just because Iowa State is doing it the 'right way' (if there is such a thing) doesn't mean that others aren't going to try to tie this up in court and try to get that thrown out because it's advantageous for them. Hell, I'd argue that it's disadvantageous for Iowa State to do it this way but we know Jamie loves rules.

The clearinghouse was always going to be on shaky ground because it doesn't make a ton of sense legally or practically. I think we can both agree that what we're seeing now isn't going to be the final finished product.

 

[cykadelic2]

Just because Iowa State is doing it the 'right way' (if there is such a thing) doesn't mean that others aren't going to try to tie this up in court and try to get that thrown out because it's advantageous for them. Hell, I'd argue that it's disadvantageous for Iowa State to do it this way but we know Jamie loves rules.

The clearinghouse was always going to be on shaky ground because it doesn't make a ton of sense legally or practically. I think we can both agree that what we're seeing now isn't going to be the final finished product.

The collectives insistent on circumventing House are better off going under the table than paying off attorneys who trying to make a buck to dispute Settlement rules that all impacted parties agreed to and have known for months as noted by Dellenger. And the Clearinghouse is the only mechanism that will reduce pay for play which most big boosters want to do as well as cited in Matt Hayes USA Today article.

If pay for play goes under the table, there is nothing anybody can do about it unless one of the parties effs up and mistakenly provides evidence for the CSC to investigate. And the only way the CSC obtains subpoena power is if House gets codified.

 

[MartyFine]

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

LMAO like Gundy wasn't cheating before. This all makes me want to puke.