NIL

[BleedinRed]

Maybe, maybe not. 

If our collective being seen as petty and vindictive for going after a guy like James who apparently never received any money causes us to lose one recruit who would've performed better, it's a net loss.  Given that we are always on the tail end of the recruiting rankings among teams on our schedule, adding an additional barrier like that over a relative pittance in college athletics terms seems unwise. 

The simple answer is for the language to not be in the contract.  If you have no intention of enforcing all provisions of a contract, then don't put those provisions in.  Simple.

[The Whyte Boar]

We need to start suing agents, boosters, and opposing coaches for tortious interference with contract.  Get at the real culprits with deep pockets.

[Lurk]

We need to start suing agents, boosters, and opposing coaches for tortious interference with contract.  Get at the real culprits with deep pockets.

There's probably a lot of money to be made. You'd have to put up with all kinds of doxing activity by pissing off entire fan bases, but you could get rich. There will also be a big market for kids trying to get their money from shady agents and influencers.

I'm just ready for the whole thing to be burned down so I hope there's maximum chaos.

[mde114]

There's probably a lot of money to be made. You'd have to put up with all kinds of doxing activity by pissing off entire fan bases, but you could get rich. There will also be a big market for kids trying to get their money from shady agents and influencers.

I'm just ready for the whole thing to be burned down so I hope there's maximum chaos.

Same here.

Arkansas football cannot compete in the current environment. We might as well try and tear it down.

[Sus-Scrofa]

I'm just ready for the whole thing to be burned down so I hope there's maximum chaos.

Quickest way for that to happen would be for the Waltons to step up the plate and buy us a few championships.  That would not be allowed to stand and rules would be changed.

Personally, I'd be fine with us making that sacrifice for the good of college sports.

[BASS]

If the walton's would get together and set up a family endowment of $10billion for razorbacks athletics, I doubt we'd ever spend all the interest it would earn.

The walton's wouldn't even notice a few billion each gone.

[Third_down_draw]

Quickest way for that to happen would be for the Waltons to step up the plate and buy us a few championships.  That would not be allowed to stand and rules would be changed.

Personally, I'd be fine with us making that sacrifice for the good of college sports.

Does D1 even have cycling as a sport?

[animal]

Ok legal minds...can an entity such as our NIL collective REQUIRE a "Performance Bond" for an individual player that they are "awarding a contract too" based on their current criteria that the student-athlete must meet? If I'm a contractor doing work for some large scale project there's always good odds I'm required to be bonded. That includes bid bonds, performance bonds, local municipality bonds etc. If I'm awarded the work and for whatever reason flake out before, during, or after "they" can come after my bond. That's how that works. Why can't that work similarly in this case? I know these deals are supposedly not contingent on "performance on the field" but lets say in this case a kid opts to nope out before he's ever really even enrolled. The kid literally took the money and ran. That's a clear cut case of a player not holding up his end of an agreement causing unjust harm and additional expenses to the team and likely in our case we are a worse team because of it. These players are currently treated as mercenaries that go to the highest bidder and to me should be subject to some kind of bond or buyouts.



Off topic...


Seems as though these players are not treated as employees of the university and are therefore essentially private 1099 contractors subject to performance based NIL agreements regardless of what the NCAA says. However this also gets into a sticky issue with how the IRS defines what it means to be an employee. Such as if the university is providing the equipment (uniforms, gear, ppe) required to perform the job, determining your work schedule, giving you direct supervision you are indeed an employee. In this past this was ignored/allowable because of it being amateur athletics. The student athlete was not "officially" accepting money for play.

[jethro]

Want a pro team? Build a pro team.

Take college sports all the way back.  No scholarships, no NIL, no nothing.  Students go out for the team a couple of weeks before school starts.  Play teams close to you.  No big contracts for media rights.  No big contracts for coaches.  Teacher pay, with days added to contract for summer practice and Saturday games.

Student athlete.

I wonder how long before we would screw it up again.

[DirkPiggler]

The simple answer is for the language to not be in the contract.  If you have no intention of enforcing all provisions of a contract, then don't put those provisions in.  Simple.

There is no simple answer to the problem. 

No one would fault us for going after Iamaleava, as A) he's received money, B) he obviously screwed us, and C) everyone seems to agree he and his family are turds and asshole.  So in that case it probably makes sense to sue.   

With James, a little known guy who probably came here initially for the scholarship alone and who likely hasn't or won't get a payoff that would cover what we're seeking, it looks like we are punching down. 

I don't really disagree with you in theory.  If you sign a contract you should honor it or suffer the consequences.   There are just a lot more layers to it than right and wrong. 

[bogeyfree]

Ok legal minds...can an entity such as our NIL collective REQUIRE a "Performance Bond" for an individual player that they are "awarding a contract too" based on their current criteria that the student-athlete must meet? If I'm a contractor doing work for some large scale project there's always good odds I'm required to be bonded. That includes bid bonds, performance bonds, local municipality bonds etc. If I'm awarded the work and for whatever reason flake out before, during, or after "they" can come after my bond. That's how that works. Why can't that work similarly in this case? I know these deals are supposedly not contingent on "performance on the field" but lets say in this case a kid opts to nope out before he's ever really even enrolled. The kid literally took the money and ran. That's a clear cut case of a player not holding up his end of an agreement causing unjust harm and additional expenses to the team and likely in our case we are a worse team because of it. These players are currently treated as mercenaries that go to the highest bidder and to me should be subject to some kind of bond or buyouts.



Off topic...


Seems as though these players are not treated as employees of the university and are therefore essentially private 1099 contractors subject to performance based NIL agreements regardless of what the NCAA says. However this also gets into a sticky issue with how the IRS defines what it means to be an employee. Such as if the university is providing the equipment (uniforms, gear, ppe) required to perform the job, determining your work schedule, giving you direct supervision you are indeed an employee. In this past this was ignored/allowable because of it being amateur athletics. The student athlete was not "officially" accepting money for play.

Ultimately if you are a contractor and fail to perform on, say, a P&P bond the insurance company is coming after you individually anyway.  You are going to end up making them whole.  That's an interesting thought, though.  I bet its possible that someone could come up with something along those lines and underwrite each kid's ability to get bonded. 

[Lurk]

There is no simple answer to the problem. 

No one would fault us for going after Iamaleava, as A) he's received money, B) he obviously screwed us, and C) everyone seems to agree he and his family are turds and asshole.  So in that case it probably makes sense to sue.   

With James, a little known guy who probably came here initially for the scholarship alone and who likely hasn't or won't get a payoff that would cover what we're seeking, it looks like we are punching down. 

I don't really disagree with you in theory.  If you sign a contract you should honor it or suffer the consequences.   There are just a lot more layers to it than right and wrong. 

With James, I'd be okay with just making him pay back his room and board.

The Imaleavin family needs their ass tore up. Pour encourager les autres.

[The Whyte Boar]

With James, I'd be okay with just making him pay back his room and board.

The Imaleavin family needs their ass tore up. Pour encourager les autres.

So uh...do they need to be taken to the back alley for that ass tearing?

[DirkPiggler]

With James, I'd be okay with just making him pay back his room and board.

The Imaleavin family needs their ass tore up. Pour encourager les autres.

I suspect James was only included because selectively enforcing contracts would weaken the case against Iamaleava.   If that's the case they'll probably quietly settle for next to nothing just to say they pursued it. 

[obijuana]

Players are going to need "buyout" clauses in their deals. Same as there is for coaches. How long before Jimmy Sexton is the agent to these kids( if he's not already)?

Money and pussy. They ruin everything.

[egregious]

Well, Ohio State paid Quin Ewers a million dollars for nothing and that worked out for them eventually.

All we have to do is pick up another high 4- or 5-star QB.

[Barton Fink]

UT looking to spend 35-40M in NIL this year on football. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/25191766-texas-cfbs-nil-budget-reportedly-sits-between-35-40m-ahead-2025-season

[Natty_Ice]

Trump met with Saban

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/president-trump-reportedly-considering-executive-order-limiting-nil-after-meeting-with-nick-saban-012129625.html

[Show-Me Hog]

Trump met with Saban

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/president-trump-reportedly-considering-executive-order-limiting-nil-after-meeting-with-nick-saban-012129625.html

I'm all in favor of getting control of NIL, but a President just saying how much somebody can make because he says so, no, I'm not in favor of that.

[Lurk]

Quickest way for that to happen would be for the Waltons to step up the plate and buy us a few championships.  That would not be allowed to stand and rules would be changed.

Personally, I'd be fine with us making that sacrifice for the good of college sports.

I guess I could be persuaded to go your route. 

 It would be interesting to see if the Razorback Curse could bankrupt a Walton.