For Goodness Sake, please read Kavanaugh’s Concurring Opinion in Alston (Google is your Friend):))
- Thread starter APanther
- Start date
And I have said 1000 times, no pay for play probably doesn't hold up in court. But it has to get there first and that would take years. In the mean time, for the 2000th time, enforce your own rule or get rid of the effing thing. What don't you get? Why have the rule if they won't enforce it?
This could be a record. You've only posted a few threads on NIL and you've already pissed off a significant portion of the Lair. That takes real talent. Very impressive Counselor.
To say that "The NCAA is not above the law" is inherently obvious and overly broad to allow you to reach your conclusion. Despite your self-stated legal expertise, you don't understand that something that generic is worthless when it comes to specifics.
You seem to imply that ANY player-related rule is illegal. Is the 85 scholarship illegal since it limits the potential earnings of the 86th man?
Alston sounds like a sandwich you'd get at a sub shop. Other than that, who cares?
And when are the board mods going to put this useless thread out of its misery? This is beyond boring and irrelevant.
Its also not against the law to allow for players to play college football for 6, 7, 10, 20 years. Its an arbitrary NCAA rule. Should Pitt field a team of 28 year olds and say "hey, its not illegal." I dont get what logic this dude us using. He's an attorney? Wow
And punishing a school for breaking a rule on tampering or pay for play doesn't take away the individual player's compensation.
You didn't answer my question about 85 scholarships.
Number of scholarship players in any class year doesn’t go to the issue of compensation. Alston is about compensation, hence, the focus.
Here you go. Scroll to page 41 in pdf.
This is bull💩. If a college player can get paid millions, why should he be limited/restricted by eligibility rules then? That’s certainly something that may “impinge on compensation”.
Haha! They aren’t and haven’t been. If you can breathe, your in. Perhaps few exceptions like Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, but that’s it. Been there.
😂😂😂 Swing and a miss. Not talking about academic eligibility. Why are programs limited as to the number of years the NCAA allows a player to play? If a player is making millions as a college player, he should be able to stay as long as the school decides to keep him, because to limit how long he can play would be “impinging on compensation” otherwise.
Young grasshopper. The issue has yet to come before the court. Capice? One issue at a time.
Nor making the player ineligible. Whether the player keeps the money is then decided on the way the NIL contract reads. It has nothing to do with the NCAA. It is a contract between two private entities.
Why does it have to? Why cant Pitt roster John Petrishen next year and have some booster pay him $25K. Its not against the law for Petrishen to get an 8th year, right? So we should just do it.
NIL isn't a bad thing, but remember how much kids get already not paying for school. Also, there has to be some kind of rules in place. Otherwise we are going to end having about 16 teams playing, because no one else will have the money to pay for play. Hell the NFL has some rules that congress has nothing to do with at all.
And that is exactly what Justice Kavanaugh said must be done in his concurring opinion! Either have national legislation or collective bargaining agreement or combo of both! Where Alston was decided in June 2021, NCAA, Conferences nor universities have raised a finger to fix it.
Can’t imagine why not. Lol!
They have asked Congress for help for years. The schools will not accept collective bargaining.
Well, the schools want to keep costs limited and continue to severely underpay they players.
Alright, so lets play this out.
Pitt lines up John Petrishen and other seniors who have run out of NCAA eligibility but haven't signed pro contracts. The opposing coach and referrees say they cannot play because they are out of eligibility. Narduzzi says "its not against the law for them to play and I refuse to play without these players who are allowed by law to play." What happens?
