blows my mind anyone thinks this guy is leaving for money
That’s premium board info bro….so the twitter guy who first texted "its about the money" later tweets he has since found out what he earlier tweeted is false and good luck to Craig at his new school. So any update on other possible reasons?
The guy had 41 tackles and 2 picks last year and has never been on an all conference team and people want to act like there’s another school out there offering him a mountain of cash or something…?
For anyone to walk this thing back and start putting regulations on it…that’s going to take something we haven’t seen yet. And that is a group of people working together for the good of the sport and not just the good of themselves or their conference. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it’s definitely unlikely. The SEC has no interest in changing nil because they are benefiting from it.Again. Dumb because you literally are assuming things won’t change and this thing will have zero regulations. I get it’s fun to prepare for the worst, but the worst case scenario rarely happens.
Why?blows my mind anyone thinks this guy is leaving for money
blows my mind anyone thinks this guy is leaving for money
I have no clue about what’s going on.The guy had 41 tackles and 2 picks last year and has never been on an all conference team and people want to act like there’s another school out there offering him a mountain of cash or something…?
For anyone to walk this thing back and start putting regulations on it…that’s going to take something we haven’t seen yet. And that is a group of people working together for the good of the sport and not just the good of themselves or their conference. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it’s definitely unlikely. The SEC has no interest in changing nil because they are benefiting from it.
The most likely scenario to me is that some of these big boosters get burned by kids who don’t produce and the top end of what looks like unlimited money dries up some. If enough of these guys get burned, maybe the top end is more like $100k instead of $1M.
A majority of states now have laws forbidding any organization from regulating NIL for college athlets. Thus, any attempt to regulate NIL is going to end up in the courts.For anyone to walk this thing back and start putting regulations on it…that’s going to take something we haven’t seen yet. And that is a group of people working together for the good of the sport and not just the good of themselves or their conference. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it’s definitely unlikely. The SEC has no interest in changing nil because they are benefiting from it.
The most likely scenario to me is that some of these big boosters get burned by kids who don’t produce and the top end of what looks like unlimited money dries up some. If enough of these guys get burned, maybe the top end is more like $100k instead of $1M.
Most schools, including Iowa State, are giving 4 year deals unless there is bad behavior. This wasn't the case until 10 years ago when they were annually renewed.Make scholarships a guaranteed contract for 1-5 years. During which time the player cannot be cut due to field performance and the player cannot transfer until the contract is complete.
That way a coach can roster plan
They can’t regulate NIL. At most they can make the wording a little more ironclad and require reasonable compensation for reasonable services provided. But that is easily skirted around and remains pay for play instead of NIL.A majority of states now have laws forbidding any organization from regulating NIL for college athlets. Thus, any attempt to regulate NIL is going to end up in the courts.
We'll see how much fortitude the NCAA has to take on NIL in the courts by who they pick as their next president.
Make scholarships 4 year deals for freshman and 2 year for jucos with an option additional year if both agree. Can only be voided if they flunk out or have a major violation of some sort. Then have a buyout clause at least equal to the scholarship. At least let the little schools have free players if they lose one.They can’t regulate NIL. At most they can make the wording a little more ironclad and require reasonable compensation for reasonable services provided. But that is easily skirted around and remains pay for play instead of NIL.
They have to get rid of the no sit out transfer. That’s all the NCAA really has power over.
Good luck enforcing that. Or getting any kid to sign that.Make scholarships 4 year deals for freshman and 2 year for jucos with an option additional year if both agree. Can only be voided if they flunk out or have a major violation of some sort. Then have a buyout clause at least equal to the scholarship. At least let the little schools have free players if they lose one.
Good luck enforcing that. Or getting any kid to sign that.
but then we come full circle to the age old argument where the kid is on the hook for 4 years at a university but the entire coaching staff can leave without penalty in the blink of an eye.Make scholarships 4 year deals for freshman and 2 year for jucos with an option additional year if both agree. Can only be voided if they flunk out or have a major violation of some sort. Then have a buyout clause at least equal to the scholarship. At least let the little schools have free players if they lose one.