Trump wants to change/limit NIL.

Donate To GopherHole


I assume what a player makes from NIL is taxed as income. So if they play for a school in a state with no income tax, isn't that a big advantage for schools in those states?
 

GopherGrit said:
Would you be OK with the Exec Order if it said something as simple as "Student-athletes at NCAA member institutions have the right to collectively bargain with the NCAA for revenue sharing and similar benefits, without being required to be employees of the schools" and left it at that?

Then the athletes could bargain the amount of the cap, without it being mandated?
Click to expand...
Executive Order? No thank you...
 

Word said:
Just look at NFL, NBA, NHL.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the players become employees of the school, sign contracts and form a union? Because otherwise none of this makes any sense.
 



Gophers1992 said:
Why would athletes agree to some sort of cap on their pay?

Also I am no attorney but I don’t even know how an arrangement like that would work.
Click to expand...
They essentially already did exactly that with the House Settlement.

NIL deals (from the school) to all athletes in total will be capped at I believe $20.5M per year. I was saying they could collectively bargain to bring that number up.
 


A NIL salary cap or any kind of draft system would be absolutely fantastic for Gopher Football and a dream scenario. A path to the 8th national championship because we're a big fish as an OG Big Ten member in a major metro area, but not able to be the biggest fish under a free-for-all setup.

It's still legally dubious at best. Why not limit the pay of carnival workers or cowboys or chemists? It's flat out un-constitutional and dangerous power creep coming from the president's order alone. One guy saying what a whole class of private citizens can be paid is un-American and smacks of communism.
 



fmlizard said:
A NIL salary cap or any kind of draft system would be absolutely fantastic for Gopher Football and a dream scenario. A path to the 8th national championship because we're a big fish as an OG Big Ten member in a major metro area, but not able to be the biggest fish under a free-for-all setup.

It's still legally dubious at best. Why not limit the pay of carnival workers or cowboys or chemists? It's flat out un-constitutional and dangerous power creep coming from the president's order alone. One guy saying what a whole class of private citizens can be paid is un-American and smacks of communism.
Click to expand...
Unconstitutional is no burden to the current administration. Don’t let reasonable arguments apply to buffoons like our current admin.

Also per your other notes, yeah dude it’s bonkers but so is current state NCAA/NIL. It doesn’t work. Have to change it and that change has to include some form of limits. Or substitute the word “limits” for “standards”(even of some people have none).
 

SamSquatch said:
Unconstitutional is no burden to the current administration. Don’t let reasonable arguments apply to buffoons like our current admin.

Also per your other notes, yeah dude it’s bonkers but so is current state NCAA/NIL. It doesn’t work. Have to change it and that change has to include some form of limits. Or substitute the word “limits” for “standards”(even of some people have none).
Click to expand...
Can you explain why current NIL has to change and needs limits?
 

SamSquatch said:
Unconstitutional is no burden to the current administration. Don’t let reasonable arguments apply to buffoons like our current admin.

Also per your other notes, yeah dude it’s bonkers but so is current state NCAA/NIL. It doesn’t work. Have to change it and that change has to include some form of limits. Or substitute the word “limits” for “standards”(even of some people have none).
Click to expand...
Take your TDS to the off topic board douchey.
If you want to address specific NIL policy here, have at it
 

LesBolstad said:
Take your TDS to the off topic board douchey.
If you want to address specific NIL policy here, have at it
Click to expand...
I'm old enough to remember a party that would have said the president dictating what a class of private citizens can be paid was wrong. Communism, even. When the president sticking his nose into the affairs of almost every private industry was wrong, and when they would they would call anyone who disagreed "deranged".

But that was when we still acted like Americans and not just flags and songs and distressed flag t-shirts and shitting on immigrants but the real American values of our founding fathers and limited government that said we should always be critical of the president or any sole authority figure no matter what, and guard the separation of powers like the crown jewels of the republic.
 



I think free enterprise rewards the creative and if that means a winning strategy for football where we become the helmet school, like an Ohio State, then we should do it. I have yet to see a displacement from traditional powers as a result of the NIL. The rich stay rich because they have the least path of resistance. We can raise money from literally anywhere. We should go after the Australian Tourism Board for ads and be the first to establish ties down under. We should have good ties with Nagoya and Tokyo where the U has a footprint. Where are our connections? There has got to be a noodle company that wants to sponsor Gopher Football. And, since we have a campus over there, maybe toss them a game once in a while. A home game in Tokyo Japan would be fantastic. Follow the money people. If our reach is only to WoodburyTim, or NYCGopher, we are in trouble.
 


GopherGrit said:
They essentially already did exactly that with the House Settlement.

NIL deals (from the school) to all athletes in total will be capped at I believe $20.5M per year. I was saying they could collectively bargain to bring that number up.
Click to expand...
As usual, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
The proposed CAP is for revenue sharing, not NIL.
 

Gophers1992 said:
Can you explain why current NIL has to change and needs limits?
Click to expand...
Currently, we have to go through a ton of hoops with these deals and they are only quasi-enforceable because we are all pretending like the players are not signing contracts to play for a specific school. It's problematic and it should be extremely problematic if you're one of those free market capitalists.

Right now, the world of college sports exist within the rubric of Title IX. Because of Title IX, we cannot allow logical contracting between parties. You can't have normal contracting with protections for both parties. You cannot have collective bargaining (for those of you desiring unionization) and you cannot treat college athletics like any other "profession".

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds. We have quasi-capitalism with only semi-enforceable contracts. I agree with everyone else that we cannot put the tooth paste back in the tube.

How would I fix it? Title IX should be gutted when it comes to college sports (difficult hurdle) and the players should be allowed to properly contract (whether collectively or not). It'll be better for players and schools. It'll be worse for non-revenue sports. If we can collectively bargain, we can also have realistic limits on eligibility.
 

ShushPush said:
I think free enterprise rewards the creative and if that means a winning strategy for football where we become the helmet school, like an Ohio State, then we should do it. I have yet to see a displacement from traditional powers as a result of the NIL. The rich stay rich because they have the least path of resistance. We can raise money from literally anywhere. We should go after the Australian Tourism Board for ads and be the first to establish ties down under. We should have good ties with Nagoya and Tokyo where the U has a footprint. Where are our connections? There has got to be a noodle company that wants to sponsor Gopher Football. And, since we have a campus over there, maybe toss them a game once in a while. A home game in Tokyo Japan would be fantastic. Follow the money people. If our reach is only to WoodburyTim, or NYCGopher, we are in trouble.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with NIL and potential NIL standards?
 

fmlizard said:
I'm old enough to remember a party that would have said the president dictating what a class of private citizens can be paid was wrong. Communism, even. When the president sticking his nose into the affairs of almost every private industry was wrong, and when they would they would call anyone who disagreed "deranged".

But that was when we still acted like Americans and not just flags and songs and distressed flag t-shirts and shitting on immigrants but the real American values of our founding fathers and limited government that said we should always be critical of the president or any sole authority figure no matter what, and guard the separation of powers like the crown jewels of the republic.
Click to expand...
The Separation of Powers were pissed on about a decade ago and we haven't had any form of limited government in 50 years (just different kinds of massive governments). In the last 5 months, we've seen how the ruling class and its sheep react to any trimming of that massive government. As much as people cry about Separation of Powers and "limited government", they only mean it when the other guys is in charge. It's a slogan people hide their whining behind (on both sides).

As for the real American values of our founding fathers, you might want to read up on them a bit more. They were extremely weary of immigration (even "legal immigration"), they certainly would view "illegal immigration" as an invasion. They would never have conceived a rationale person would argue that illegal immigration was fine.

Hamilton compared immigration to "nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty" and that the survival of the republic depended upon the "preservation of a national spirit and a national character" which he clearly believes is diluted by "foreigners".

Washington discussed the need for any foreigner that "intermixes" with our people needs to assimilate into our culture and language immediately.

Madison wrote at length about limiting immigration drastically unless there was a direct financial benefit to the US.

You might not want to look at the "kinds" of immigrants early Americans found acceptable.

Whether you agree with the Founding Fathers or not, they were far to the right of most Conservatives on the issue.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
The Separation of Powers were pissed on about a decade ago and we haven't had any form of limited government in 50 years (just different kinds of massive governments). In the last 5 months, we've seen how the ruling class and its sheep react to any trimming of that massive government. As much as people cry about Separation of Powers and "limited government", they only mean it when the other guys is in charge. It's a slogan people hide their whining behind (on both sides).

As for the real American values of our founding fathers, you might want to read up on them a bit more. They were extremely weary of immigration (even "legal immigration"), they certainly would view "illegal immigration" as an invasion. They would never have conceived a rationale person would argue that illegal immigration was fine.

Hamilton compared immigration to "nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty" and that the survival of the republic depended upon the "preservation of a national spirit and a national character" which he clearly believes is diluted by "foreigners".

Washington discussed the need for any foreigner that "intermixes" with our people needs to assimilate into our culture and language immediately.

Madison wrote at length about limiting immigration drastically unless there was a direct financial benefit to the US.

You might not want to look at the "kinds" of immigrants early Americans found acceptable.

Whether you agree with the Founding Fathers or not, they were far to the right of most Conservatives on the issue.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers seem pretty hypocritical on this, don't you think?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Currently, we have to go through a ton of hoops with these deals and they are only quasi-enforceable because we are all pretending like the players are not signing contracts to play for a specific school. It's problematic and it should be extremely problematic if you're one of those free market capitalists.

Right now, the world of college sports exist within the rubric of Title IX. Because of Title IX, we cannot allow logical contracting between parties. You can't have normal contracting with protections for both parties. You cannot have collective bargaining (for those of you desiring unionization) and you cannot treat college athletics like any other "profession".

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds. We have quasi-capitalism with only semi-enforceable contracts. I agree with everyone else that we cannot put the tooth paste back in the tube.

How would I fix it? Title IX should be gutted when it comes to college sports (difficult hurdle) and the players should be allowed to properly contract (whether collectively or not). It'll be better for players and schools. It'll be worse for non-revenue sports. If we can collectively bargain, we can also have realistic limits on eligibility.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I appreciate that explanation. I personally have been of the belief that they need to stop trying to put in whatever enforcements are out there, and stop trying to differentiate between “true NIL” (whatever that means), and pay for play.

In my opinion if some crazy rich guy wants to pay a kid $10M to play for his favorite school, I don’t see why that needs to be prevented.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Currently, we have to go through a ton of hoops with these deals and they are only quasi-enforceable because we are all pretending like the players are not signing contracts to play for a specific school. It's problematic and it should be extremely problematic if you're one of those free market capitalists.

Right now, the world of college sports exist within the rubric of Title IX. Because of Title IX, we cannot allow logical contracting between parties. You can't have normal contracting with protections for both parties. You cannot have collective bargaining (for those of you desiring unionization) and you cannot treat college athletics like any other "profession".

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds. We have quasi-capitalism with only semi-enforceable contracts. I agree with everyone else that we cannot put the tooth paste back in the tube.

How would I fix it? Title IX should be gutted when it comes to college sports (difficult hurdle) and the players should be allowed to properly contract (whether collectively or not). It'll be better for players and schools. It'll be worse for non-revenue sports. If we can collectively bargain, we can also have realistic limits on eligibility.
Click to expand...
I like most of your post and agree Title IX will be hard to change. Title IX’s power is the Federal Dollars that flow into the schools. What might work is if schools completely removed financial support for athletics. And once there are no ties between Federal Dollars and athletics, then Title IX won’t have to be strictly followed. I agree with Title IX’s premise of opportunities for women, but it’s become more than that.
 

Gophers1992 said:
Thanks, I appreciate that explanation. I personally have been of the belief that they need to stop trying to put in whatever enforcements are out there, and stop trying to differentiate between “true NIL” (whatever that means), and pay for play.

In my opinion if some crazy rich guy wants to pay a kid $10M to play for his favorite school, I don’t see why that needs to be prevented.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m totally cool with pay for play, but I think the system needs to be treated like any other commercial enterprise.
 


I have just read another arrested development post that made zero legal sense. It is as if the profession of law in academia lost its fricking head and all common sense. When the law acts this way, it is usually due to the inability of the legal profession to act rationally as they only consider the mounds of precedent that mismatches with whatever is in front of them. That puts them into a tizzy because instead of thinking what the law actually says and applying it, they get stuck in precedent like medicine does when cures don't run through the FDA. Mental paralysis occurs. We may have witnessed it in full a few moments ago. The way through this morass is to ignore the lawyers and proceed without their screwed up, twisted, irrational logic. There are simply times when you say 'screw city hall' and proceed as if they don't exist and then duke it out in court with all rational logic. The law doesn't always relate to the terms on the ground and that is when trailblazing is required.

Title IX has nothing to do with the NIL. ZERO. It doesn't govern NIL in the least. Contract law does. Use contract law in its most ordinary fashion and abide by Alston/Alstad/whatever the court said was pro money. If SCOTUS thought money should walk and talk, then let contract law apply in full, then let it. Students are able to enter into contracts about NIL without any other party involved but who stands in front of them with a negotiated contract. Not a school. Not a conference. Not anybody but the business and the student. If a lawyer says otherwise, they are out of their minds with screwed up legal theory.

When the lawyers think they run civilization is when Marie Antoinette is the face of the coin of the realm. Fear has no place in business. Lawyers sell fear.
 

WAGopher said:
I like most of your post and agree Title IX will be hard to change. Title IX’s power is the Federal Dollars that flow into the schools. What might work is if schools completely removed financial support for athletics. And once there are no ties between Federal Dollars and athletics, then Title IX won’t have to be strictly followed. I agree with Title IX’s premise of opportunities for women, but it’s become more than that.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I am all for equality for women, but it’s been insane on college campuses for years.

I agree with your premise. I don’t know how it would mechanically work for institutions that take so much federal money.

I think it would require something like each sports team being officially standalone private entities that are affiliated with the schools and leave the NCAA. But that would open a ton of potentially massive changes like the possibility of a team relocating (being affiliated with a different school).
 

ShushPush said:
I have just read another arrested development post that made zero legal sense. It is as if the profession of law in academia lost its fricking head and all common sense. When the law acts this way, it is usually due to the inability of the legal profession to act rationally as they only consider the mounds of precedent that mismatches with whatever is in front of them. That puts them into a tizzy because instead of thinking what the law actually says and applying it, they get stuck in precedent like medicine does when cures don't run through the FDA. Mental paralysis occurs. We may have witnessed it in full a few moments ago. The way through this morass is to ignore the lawyers and proceed without their screwed up, twisted, irrational logic. There are simply times when you say 'screw city hall' and proceed as if they don't exist and then duke it out in court with all rational logic. The law doesn't always relate to the terms on the ground and that is when trailblazing is required.

Title IX has nothing to do with the NIL. ZERO. It doesn't govern NIL in the least. Contract law does. Use contract law in its most ordinary fashion and abide by Alston/Alstad/whatever the court said was pro money. If SCOTUS thought money should walk and talk, then let contract law apply in full, then let it. Students are able to enter into contracts about NIL without any other party involved but who stands in front of them with a negotiated contract. Not a school. Not a conference. Not anybody but the business and the student. If a lawyer says otherwise, they are out of their minds with screwed up legal theory.

When the lawyers think they run civilization is when Marie Antoinette is the face of the coin of the realm. Fear has no place in business. Lawyers sell fear.
Click to expand...
Lawyers don’t make law, legislatures do abd judges interpret the law.

None of your paragraphs make sense individually or collectively.
 

gopherphil said:
Only the best POTUS in my and your lifetime!!
Click to expand...
Gopherphilia, his first term was a disaster in management of a disease. I am hopeful this second term will show a different, a more experienced approach to governance. I am very pleased with some things he has already done and absolutely mortified by others. Fortunately, the mortifications have been few and generally inconsequential. BTW, philia would be the proper way to express love of gophers. Phil is just some dudes name.
 

ShushPush said:
I have just read another arrested development post that made zero legal sense. It is as if the profession of law in academia lost its fricking head and all common sense. When the law acts this way, it is usually due to the inability of the legal profession to act rationally as they only consider the mounds of precedent that mismatches with whatever is in front of them. That puts them into a tizzy because instead of thinking what the law actually says and applying it, they get stuck in precedent like medicine does when cures don't run through the FDA. Mental paralysis occurs. We may have witnessed it in full a few moments ago. The way through this morass is to ignore the lawyers and proceed without their screwed up, twisted, irrational logic. There are simply times when you say 'screw city hall' and proceed as if they don't exist and then duke it out in court with all rational logic. The law doesn't always relate to the terms on the ground and that is when trailblazing is required.

Title IX has nothing to do with the NIL. ZERO. It doesn't govern NIL in the least. Contract law does. Use contract law in its most ordinary fashion and abide by Alston/Alstad/whatever the court said was pro money. If SCOTUS thought money should walk and talk, then let contract law apply in full, then let it. Students are able to enter into contracts about NIL without any other party involved but who stands in front of them with a negotiated contract. Not a school. Not a conference. Not anybody but the business and the student. If a lawyer says otherwise, they are out of their minds with screwed up legal theory.

When the lawyers think they run civilization is when Marie Antoinette is the face of the coin of the realm. Fear has no place in business. Lawyers sell fear.
Click to expand...
Can anyone translate this into English for me?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom