How WIll the NCAA Enforce New Compensation and NIL Rules? | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

How WIll the NCAA Enforce New Compensation and NIL Rules?

Because, there was a time...when very young adults knowing how fortunate they were getting a full ride at an institute of higher learning, et al, along with playing a game they loved, being truly grateful getting that surprise $100 bill in a Christmas card.
I played at a small school and guys would be around the team and ask us to watch their kid for a few minutes and give us a 20 or 50. I also got some jobs that were actually jobs. Not hard but they paid well. Of course, some free food and drinks as the drinking age was 18. I thought I was in heaven if I got 100.00.
 
The NCAA cannot enforce NIL. It's too hard to prove that anything from boosters is pay for play, despite nearly all of it being exactly that. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.

The new rules for allowing schools to pay players directly changes nothing. The payment floor has been raised, but the disparity between schools will remain the same. Rich psycho boosters will ensure their schools will have the most to spend.
 
Getting them to pass anything that takes away states rights isn't going to happen.
It falls squarely under the interstate commerce clause. They may or may not, but they can.
 
Agreed, and there are always going to be programs that look to sidestep the rules regardless

My hunch...

A bunch of the big programs will get away with violations and then a program will be cherry picked and nailed to cross for violations to make it look like the NCAA is doing something...

It won't be an SEC power school either.

Sound familiar???
 
The NCAA cannot enforce NIL. It's too hard to prove that anything from boosters is pay for play, despite nearly all of it being exactly that. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.

The new rules for allowing schools to pay players directly changes nothing. The payment floor has been raised, but the disparity between schools will remain the same. Rich psycho boosters will ensure their schools will have the most to spend.
Deloitte will enforce as they can. Whether there is legal jurisdiction is the next question, but there are more schools that will be willing to turn others in now. I’ve heard it directly. Won’t be the “they’re doing it but so are we so let’s just be quiet” sort of thing.
 
Sounds like a good chance current walk ons get grandfathered in.

Wilken suggested Monday that any current athlete should get to keep their spot even if it puts a team over the new roster limit.

"My idea there is to grandfather in a group of rostered people. There are not that many. It's not that expensive. It would generate a lot of good will," Wilken said.
 
Sounds like a good chance current walk ons get grandfathered in.

Wilken suggested Monday that any current athlete should get to keep their spot even if it puts a team over the new roster limit.

"My idea there is to grandfather in a group of rostered people. There are not that many. It's not that expensive. It would generate a lot of good will," Wilken said.

 
Sounds like a good chance current walk ons get grandfathered in.

Wilken suggested Monday that any current athlete should get to keep their spot even if it puts a team over the new roster limit.

"My idea there is to grandfather in a group of rostered people. There are not that many. It's not that expensive. It would generate a lot of good will," Wilken said.
Absolutely the right thing to do, but I don’t read that the judge is proposing only walkons should be grandfathered in. If you can use the grandfather clause for all current athletes it creates a loophole where full scholarship athletes are excluded from roster limits and programs can bring in dozens more recruited athletes and transfers.
Ideally the grandfather clause should protect current walkons and partial scholarship players on Olympic sports teams.
 
"The bill, if it moves forward, is expected to have three major components. First, federal preemption of any state-based NIL laws. Second, a declaration that athletes are students and not employees. Third, and most importantly, a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the NCAA and the major conferences to enforce eligibility and transfer rules without fear of liability."

This sounds like a good framework. It will be interesting to see what else is worked into possible legislation.

Of course, the conferences could all get together and agree on rules and standards but that would require the SEC and B1G to consider equal revenue sharing with others, which won't happen anytime soon.
 
"The bill, if it moves forward, is expected to have three major components. First, federal preemption of any state-based NIL laws. Second, a declaration that athletes are students and not employees. Third, and most importantly, a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the NCAA and the major conferences to enforce eligibility and transfer rules without fear of liability."

This sounds like a good framework. It will be interesting to see what else is worked into possible legislation.

Of course, the conferences could all get together and agree on rules and standards but that would require the SEC and B1G to consider equal revenue sharing with others, which won't happen anytime soon.
No way states are going to allow their congress representatives to pass a bill where the federal government takes away states NIL bills.
 
No way states are going to allow their congress representatives to pass a bill where the federal government takes away states NIL bills.
I agree, there will be a fight. I think that the Commerce Clause will be asserted at some point because many games, if not most, are played across state lines. Just a guess, though a guess based on history.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
172,848
Messages
5,051,260
Members
6,034
Latest member
CuseSaint26

Online statistics

Members online
294
Guests online
1,633
Total visitors
1,927


...
Top Bottom