More trouble in ACC paradise?

[JwittersPAC]

I took "real" to mean they were getting paid for services rendered that we all have seen vs just giving them money for nothing in return.

So what I am hearing is if they are receiving $100,000 from Jordon Furniture and as long as they are in one advertisement it is “real” NIL. The difference is the NIL clearinghouse is defining real NIL based on the market value of those services being provided/rendered. I think that is where the enforcement of NIL will fall apart once the first court case is heard. In addition many states have secrecy laws like for UConn NIL/revenue provided to players is outside the freedom of information act by a law passed by CT legislature so it will be curious to see if these NIL deals are even shared with the NCAA enforcement agency and how would NCAA force a player to provide that information.

 

[baggerbob]

That's always been the dream, right? That common sense would eventually prevail, and we'd return to a system that better preserved the myth of the student athlete. I don't think it will happen, at least at the highest level of the money sports. I do think there will be an opportunity for those not electing to continue to buy into that system, but the schools that take it will soon be forgotten in the national consciousness. Perhaps the more interesting question is how long will power conferences be tolerant of schools like Boston College that don't invest in their athletics and instead are a parasite off their more successful conference mates.

I don't see schools opting out of receiving tens of millions of dollars annually. I do think there's a chance that some of them will get "voted off the island" though.

Conferences aren't going to do anything to get the attention of the Government. And to start throwing members out of their conference would. That would definitely get the attention of the Federal Government, and once they get involved everything will come tumbling down.

 

[CL82]

Conferences aren't going to do anything to get the attention of the Government. And to start throwing members out of their conference would. That would definitely get the attention of the Federal Government, and once they get involved everything will come tumbling down.

I agree somewhat. I wouldn't expect the separating of the wheat from the chaff to look like anyone was being thrown out. Instead, I can see a scenario where a conference might ask for minimum standards of financing, and/or facilities of members. In that case, it would not be so much that anyone was "kicked out", rather they would be choosing no longer to be a member.

 

[Jetskies]

I agree somewhat. I wouldn't expect the separating of the wheat from the chaff to look like anyone was being thrown out. Instead, I can see a scenario where a conference might ask for minimum standards of financing, and/or facilities of members. In that case, it would be so much that anyone was "kicked out", rather they would be choosing no longer to be a member.

it's like when my insurance premium jumped by like 3x, for no stinkin' reason. they're not kicking me out ... but they are.

conference is like - "OK Bye!" (alligator tear)

 

[Jetskies]

where does this all end?
I am starting to lose my footing... what's up/down, where's the ceiling...

i just feel like i am floating in deep space, waiting for the next fake news tweet on X telling me Big 12 is talking to Uconn for the umpteenth time about joining.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

So what I am hearing is if they are receiving $100,000 from Jordon Furniture and as long as they are in one advertisement it is “real” NIL.

Obviously in your example that's a very high amount of money and is intentionally high to support the athlete. I feel like you're intentionally not understanding. Again, I took Jim's intent to distinguish between actually doing something for payment vs a no-show job, like the mob had on building sites or Robbie Benson got in "One on One" where his "job" was to turn on sprinklers that automatically turned on. The contention is some are just getting paid without doing anything in return.

 

[JwittersPAC]

Obviously in your example that's a very high amount of money and is intentionally high to support the athlete. I feel like you're intentionally not understanding. Again, I took Jim's intent to distinguish between actually doing something for payment vs a no-show job, like the mob had on building sites or Robbie Benson got in "One on One" where his "job" was to turn on sprinklers that automatically turned on. The contention is some are just getting paid without doing anything in return.

I was trying to make a point that the NIL oversight committee definition of real nil is market value. I think they have zero chance of their definition holding up to court scrutiny,