For those following the House Settlement

[.45s]

The first of many changes to come.

[Bevo92]

Now that NIL more formally approved (ie money stays above the table with legit deals), this would seem to be a massive win for Texas.

Hook em!! 🧡🐂🤘🏼

[Lam Dinh]

1 hour ago, GoHorns1 said:

Does the dollar amount from the “collectives” still need approval of NIL Go Fund and Deloitte?

Yes that is still in effect, but lots of smaller deals are likely to go through since most athletes will be getting less than 100k from NIL, which should not (in theory) raise as many flags. 

[TexasFanatic]

If I’m not mistaken, we can now use the Cap plus collective money….

As long as we are fundraising and getting collective (plus actual 3rd party business money) money we can pay recruits whatever. We can have the number 1 class every year if we want it plus pay our roster. 
 

Thank gawd we are rich (the richest too) 

[Bobby Burton]

4 hours ago, Realist Horn said:

So they have now eliminated one of the two checks and balances for school related entities -  (1) legitimate business purpose and (2) compensation range. 
 

a collective only need to establish a compensation range which Deloitte will some how formulate (and lose if challenged in court). So we’ll be back to unlimited payments from a collective in the next 6-months. 

This is just more of the same. Legal folks said this new rule would be struck down and it already has.

I’m guessing the rest will follow suit.

Until there is athlete bargaining, this is all just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. 

[Bobby Burton]

2 hours ago, Joe Zura said:

Right I’m just a dumb redneck from the Midwest which Bobby hates us Midwest folk 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

One of the 10 great rivalries in college football:

Minnesota vs Wisconsin.

Said no one. Ever. Except someone from the Midwest. 😉

 

[Bobby Burton]

2 hours ago, GoHorns1 said:

Does the dollar amount from the “collectives” still need approval of NIL Go Fund and Deloitte?

Yes, it still needs to.

[horns96]

19 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said:

This is just more of the same. Legal folks said this new rule would be struck down and it already has.

I’m guessing the rest will follow suit.

Until there is athlete bargaining, this is all just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Cody Campbell is still working the Power of the Executive Pen.

[GoHorns1]

@Bobby Burton, if I understand correctly the “collective” NIL deals aren’t counted  against the “ school”  cap money nor are they”private business “ deals. Does the “schools” NIL deal need NIL Go Fund and Deloitte approve (I’m thinking ye).

[harveycmd]

Essentially the collective can operate just like third parties rather than as originally defined as "affiliated." Still needs CSC approval, but doesn't count against the "cap." I've said more than a dozen times on here that the idea of controlling marketing deals was patently idiotic. First threat of legal action and it goes away. Next will be the CSC itself.

[FootLaw]

Figured this was coming. Poorly defined, if defined at all, "legitimate business purpose" was a legal landmine waiting to be stepped on.

If we want real rules, they're going to need to come from Congress or athletes will need to be made employees with CBAs. Otherwise, it's a litigation field day for us lawyers with the way the SCOTUS ruled against the NCAA.

[Jonesyfam7]

In all seriousness this could potentially open the door for us to really close with a bang.  Guys like:

 

Davon Benjamin

Trenton Henderson

Kendal Guervil

Jaimeon Winfield

Lott

Finley

Kent

Lee

Roseborough

Greene

Simeon

 

 

We can go back and spend to have the highest payroll in football and not miss out on anyone we really want due to NIL.

 

Obviously we won’t get everyone but there are some on this list that we could potentially circle back to if we wanted because we now have the Collectives and the school budget to spend.

 

Outside of collective deals going through approval this seems more like the flood gates are back open like they have been the last few seasons.

[harveycmd]

2 minutes ago, FootLaw said:

Figured this was coming. Poorly defined, if defined at all, "legitimate business purpose" was a legal landmine waiting to be stepped on.

If we want real rules, they're going to need to come from Congress or athletes will need to be made employees with CBAs. Otherwise, it's a litigation field day for us lawyers with the way the SCOTUS ruled against the NCAA.

Federal legislation that doesn't give the players the right to agree to the terms won't withstand judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has basically said that. Colleges don't want players of revenue generating sports to be employees, but they can't get around it as long as they are making money off the players.

[Hashtag]

Wouldn’t it be smarter for the athletes to not unionize considering they’re winning every single one of these decisions? That would just make it easier for schools and ncaa to cap them. 

[harveycmd]

1 minute ago, Hashtag said:

Wouldn’t it be smarter for the athletes to not unionize considering they’re winning every single one of these decisions? That would just make it easier for schools and ncaa to cap them. 

Yes, it would. Unionization benefits employees that don't have rare skills because it sets a baseline level of compensation above real market value. The reason some professional sports are unionized is to set a baseline level of security for all players. 

[harveycmd]

You can get consent from players without unionization. Most employee contracts in the US aren't unionized.

[Realist Horn]

6 hours ago, Hashtag said:

Wouldn’t it be smarter for the athletes to not unionize considering they’re winning every single one of these decisions? That would just make it easier for schools and ncaa to cap them. 

100%; it’s a free market now…if they are being advised properly, they shouldn’t. 
 

schools, admin and the NCAA are like professional owners who want to cap their spending to protect their own pocketbooks. 

[Realist Horn]

6 hours ago, harveycmd said:

Yes, it would. Unionization benefits employees that don't have rare skills because it sets a baseline level of compensation above real market value. The reason some professional sports are unionized is to set a baseline level of security for all players. 

But, it would also allow for collective bargaining that could set a ceiling as well (which is the only reason schools want it). 

[Hashtag]

1 hour ago, Realist Horn said:

But, it would also allow for collective bargaining that could set a ceiling as well (which is the only reason schools want it). 

It also is easier to collectively bargain when there are only 1700 NFL players roughly. In NCAA there is at minimum 11,500 and that is at the 85 number, not the expanded roster number. 

[Casey67]

11 hours ago, drag worm said:

This can’t hurt with Davon Benjamin. 
 

It can't hurt but, given we're going against Oregon, it doesn't help either.  Money is no object to either school. 

[Casey67]

Bobby,

Does this essentially cause a wave of "renegotiations" with kids already verbally committed?

[Texas84]

Hawaii judge will block it.

[FootLaw]

9 hours ago, harveycmd said:

Federal legislation that doesn't give the players the right to agree to the terms won't withstand judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has basically said that. Colleges don't want players of revenue generating sports to be employees, but they can't get around it as long as they are making money off the players.

Federal legislation can be tailored to fit within the SCOTUS sandbox, or they'll push through legislation knowing it will make its way back to SCOTUS in an attempt to narrow their previous ruling. As for employees, you are correct. Schools are in a weird spot of wanting to cap the madness while not wanting to deal with the employment headache. We'll see. The current landscape will not be sustainable.

[BobInHouston]

3 minutes ago, FootLaw said:

Federal legislation can be tailored to fit within the SCOTUS sandbox, or they'll push through legislation knowing it will make its way back to SCOTUS in an attempt to narrow their previous ruling. As for employees, you are correct. Schools are in a weird spot of wanting to cap the madness while not wanting to deal with the employment headache. We'll see. The current landscape will not be sustainable.

I am sympathetic to the schools not wanting to negotiate with the players as employees, because of the concern over the impact on alumni, but I believe the schools don't really want to negotiate on anything.