Mitch is preparing for NIL Marathon.

[UKnCincy_rivals]

When a company signs a deal with UK as the "official meat/car/jewelry/swimming pool/etc" that isn't a negotiated and executed deal that contains an exclusivity provision?

So UK could sign the same deal with several competitors in their field?

You didn’t assert that UK was restricted from seeking additional deals.

You asserted that an exclusivity deal that UK might enter into with a company like Critchfield meats would also prevent UK’s student athletes from signing any deals with one of Critchfield’s competitors. That’s simply not true and frankly a bit absurd to suggest.

Unless all of the athletes also signed UK’s deal with Critchfield, the student athletes are not party to UK’s agreement with Critchfield and cannot be bound by its terms. That’s a pretty basic concept in contracting.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

You can’t be that naive. Let a few things like U6’s sex for boys or other form of ethically questionable practices pop up and you’ll find out what the infractions committee can do. If they don’t protect the brand, nobody gets any money.

He’s not being naive. He simply doesn’t have an accurate understanding of the current facts.

The NCAA issued a waiver specific to earning money from outside endorsements. That’s it. All other by-laws related to prohibiting athletes from receiving extra benefits remain in effect as of now with no imminent plans to change them.

As bad as the Alston ruling was for the NCAA, the Supreme Court did not remove the NCAA’s ability to set limits entirely. For example, the ruling was explicit that while the NCAA can’t limit how much schools offer in terms of education related benefits, they still had the ability as of now to define what was education related and what wasn’t.

Gorsuch reminded the NCAA in the ruling that they could still institute things like a “no Lamborghini rule” that would prohibit schools from handing out luxury cars and trying to call them “education related.”

 

[MegaBlue05]

Who cares anymore. Schools bidding for players is disgusting.

It’s always been that way. Now, it’s just going to be out in the open without the bag men.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

You didn’t assert that UK was restricted from seeking additional deals.

You asserted that an exclusivity deal that UK might enter into with a company like Critchfield meats would also prevent UK’s student athletes from signing any deals with one of Critchfield’s competitors. That’s simply not true and frankly a bit absurd to suggest.

Unless all of the athletes also signed UK’s deal with Critchfield, the student athletes are not party to UK’s agreement with Critchfield and cannot be bound by its terms. That’s a pretty basic concept in contracting.

No I'm talking about the agreement with UK and it's sponsors. Clear privity there. The players are agents of the university so the exclusivity would be jeopardized.

You're right the players didn't have privity. That's why the eo was so damaging to their efforts. The governors eo injected the additional restriction. So now the players restricted unless the ncaa or school explicitly says otherwise. That's why the school wants to review all their agreements in advance.

 

[kybassfan]

He’s not being naive. He simply doesn’t have an accurate understanding of the current facts.

The NCAA issued a waiver specific to earning money from outside endorsements. That’s it. All other by-laws related to prohibiting athletes from receiving extra benefits remain in effect as of now with no imminent plans to change them.

As bad as the Alston ruling was for the NCAA, the Supreme Court did not remove the NCAA’s ability to set limits entirely. For example, the ruling was explicit that while the NCAA can’t limit how much schools offer in terms of education related benefits, they still had the ability as of now to define what was education related and what wasn’t.

Gorsuch reminded the NCAA in the ruling that they could still institute things like a “no Lamborghini rule” that would prohibit schools from handing out luxury cars and trying to call them “education related.”

That is consistent with my understanding as well.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

No I'm talking about the agreement with UK and it's sponsors. Clear privity there. The players are agents of the university so the exclusivity would be jeopardized.

You're right the players didn't have privity. That's why the eo was so damaging to their efforts. The governors eo injected the additional restriction. So now the players restricted unless the ncaa or school explicitly says otherwise. That's why the school wants to review all their agreements in advance.

You are in way over your head here.

UK’s contract in the Critchfield example would be completely fine. The students are not a party to that agreement, are not bound by it nor is there any other agreement that exists between UK and the athletes that would establish that kind of responsibility on the part of the athlete.

There’s really not much else to say other than you clearly don’t understand how these things work.

 

[loublue22_rivals308424]

It’s always been that way. Now, it’s just going to be out in the open without the bag men.

No it hasn't

 

[MegaBlue05]

No it hasn't

I would beg to differ, especially over the last 25+ years with the involvement of shoe companies in AAU and college recruiting.

Players are often steered to the highest under-the-table bidder aka “strong *** offers”

 

[Gromcat_rivals]

I would beg to differ, especially over the last 25+ years with the involvement of shoe companies in AAU and college recruiting.

Players are often steered to the highest under-the-table bidder aka “strong *** offers”

This is used as a means to argue in favor of professionalizing the sport, but there’s no evidence that everyone has been cheating at a rate rampant enough to destroy amateurism. This idea has just been parroted around. And even if many have been, its only been at the elite level. Nobody is paying the vast amounts of college athletes anything other than the education / college experience.

Besides, the logic doesn’t hold up. People don’t go around legalizing things just because there’s an underground market.

This is just a money grab by the elite portion of athlete families. Wether or not it’s right or wrong doesn’t have anything to do with what’s going on.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Anyone see the UK restrictions on NIL? Anyone see the other schools?

UK will have to really back off the restrictions or fall way behind in recruiting. They cute the eo of course, because it's terrible, but they're the ones who lobbied for it.

Compare to UL, who could also claim the eo as protection. Their messaging is way different and much better.

Mitch won't be able to hold this line long. The only question is if he will go out with the ideas.