MSHSL Board approves NIL policy for MN HS students

Donate To GopherHole
The NCAA, as they quite clearly say, are begging for the US Congress to pass federal law governing NIL in college athletics.
 

Some guy said:
Well, according to the Supreme Court ruling it probably isn’t limitable

Could the NFL pass a rule blocking endorsements outside the salary cap? Not if it isn’t collectively bargained


Which is why the ncaa hasn’t even attempted to regulate it. Any regulation they impose eventually could be overturned in court


How an association could regulate it is via sitting out for transfers. Not a problem in high school yet.
But how to limit in high school?
1 year sit out of varsity even if there is a move
2 year sit out if no move

How to limit it in ncaa?
Sit out a year to transfer no matter the circumstance



The way to limit NIL causing roster upheaval isn’t limiting dollar amounts it is limiting movement of players via holdout periods for movement
Click to expand...
100% agree!
 

That won't stop, however, NIL being used explicitly as recruiting inducement to sign with a particular school.

Not talking about recruits knowing in general that school X tends to offer the biggest NIL deals. That just is what it is, nothing you can do there.

Talking about "letting it be known" via various back channels about explicit quid pro quo via NIL deals.
 

(sorry for the string of posts, after this I'm done)

It seems correct to me that you can't limit deals and dollars, but that you can limit eligibility. So then to tackle what I said above, wonder if the following could at all be legitimate:

- any player that has secured a NIL deal for their first year in college, is not eligible to participate in games during that first year.

??
 

Some guy said:
Well, according to the Supreme Court ruling it probably isn’t limitable

Could the NFL pass a rule blocking endorsements outside the salary cap? Not if it isn’t collectively bargained


Which is why the ncaa hasn’t even attempted to regulate it. Any regulation they impose eventually could be overturned in court


How an association could regulate it is via sitting out for transfers. Not a problem in high school yet.
But how to limit in high school?
1 year sit out of varsity even if there is a move
2 year sit out if no move

How to limit it in ncaa?
Sit out a year to transfer no matter the circumstance



The way to limit NIL causing roster upheaval isn’t limiting dollar amounts it is limiting movement of players via holdout periods for movement
Click to expand...
This is the right answer.

The truth is that the NCAA was always on shaky ground with trying to stop people from monetizing on their own name, image, or likeness. The only reason it took so long was because we all love college football and basketball. I think it would be a futile battle to try to regulate the money.

The NCAA can regulate the movement but even that could get tough. Could stricter transfer policies be considered unreasonable restraints on trade? If player A could make $100,000 more by transferring and they aren't allowed to monetize that offer, is that reasonable? It is for a football fan but I don't think it would hold in any other circumstance.

I'm not saying that I like what's happening but typically, in this country, if someone wants to pay you for performing a legal action, we rigorously defend someone's right to do it.
 


Gophers_4life said:
(sorry for the string of posts, after this I'm done)

It seems correct to me that you can't limit deals and dollars, but that you can limit eligibility. So then to tackle what I said above, wonder if the following could at all be legitimate:

- any player that has secured a NIL deal for their first year in college, is not eligible to participate in games during that first year.

??
Click to expand...
The question will come down to whether or not that is a reasonable restraint of trade.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is the right answer.

The truth is that the NCAA was always on shaky ground with trying to stop people from monetizing on their own name, image, or likeness. The only reason it took so long was because we all love college football and basketball. I think it would be a futile battle to try to regulate the money.

The NCAA can regulate the movement but even that could get tough. Could stricter transfer policies be considered unreasonable restraints on trade? If player A could make $100,000 more by transferring and they aren't allowed to monetize that offer, is that reasonable? It is for a football fan but I don't think it would hold in any other circumstance.

I'm not saying that I like what's happening but typically, in this country, if someone wants to pay you for performing a legal action, we rigorously defend someone's right to do it.
Click to expand...
It's because in all those other circumstances that people use as counter-arguments in the context of college, there is no high-stakes, high-value interscholastic competition that has rules and enforcement regulated by a private third party.

A star chemist wants to go to Duke and someone wants to pay $100k NIL to do so. Fine, go and start doing chemistry right away. There is no chemistry battle being fought between schools, governed by the US Chemistry Competition Association.

A star violinist wants to go to NYU and someone wants to pay $100k NIL to do so. Fine, go and start playing right away. There is no orchestra battle being fought between schools, governed by the US Orchestra Competition Association.


(the last one may actually be more false than I'm hypothesizing here, to some degree. Not sure. I'm guessing the chemistry one is right)


To me, as a lay person, such a factor should be too important to simply dismiss, when considering the impact to trade restraint. But in the actual eyes of the law (judges), it may not matter much if at all.
 

OK, so I read through the entire MSHSL policy.

Permissible activities are listed as:
Teaching/Instructing/Coaching. as in, a HS athlete could hold a camp for younger kids and charge a fee.
Advertising a Commercial Product or Service.
Autographs.

one of the key stipulations is that any use of NIL must NOT include any mention of a school, team or mascot.

the specific language: A student may not reference their involvement in high school activities at their school when promoting a business activity.

So, Joe Stud can do an NIL deal with Fred's Pizza, but the advertising cannot state that Joe Stud is a member of Hometown High, and cannot show Joe Stud wearing a Hometown High Jersey or use the Hometown High Mascot "Homer."

If a student is found to be in violation of the policy, they lose their remaining HS eligibility.

A kid would have to be really well-known to have endorsement value IF the ad cannot mention anything about their HS athletic involvement. Like, "Hi, I'm Jaxon Howard, and I love Fred's Pizza."
How many people would really know who Jaxon Howard is? Maybe if it was a Holmgren or Suggs situation, or Paige Bueckers in HS - but anyone short of that level, I don't see it.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
A kid would have to be really well-known to have endorsement value IF the ad cannot mention anything about their HS athletic involvement. Like, "Hi, I'm Jaxon Howard, and I love Fred's Pizza."
How many people would really know who Jaxon Howard is? Maybe if it was a Holmgren or Suggs situation, or Paige Bueckers in HS - but anyone short of that level, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

And the deals are going to be offered, anyway.

So what does that tell you about the motivations of offering such a deal?
 



Gophers_4life said:
It's because in all those other circumstances that people use as counter-arguments in the context of college, there is no high-stakes, high-value interscholastic competition that has rules and enforcement regulated by a private third party.

A star chemist wants to go to Duke and someone wants to pay $100k NIL to do so. Fine, go and start doing chemistry right away. There is no chemistry battle being fought between schools, governed by the US Chemistry Competition Association.

A star violinist wants to go to NYU and someone wants to pay $100k NIL to do so. Fine, go and start playing right away. There is no orchestra battle being fought between schools, governed by the US Orchestra Competition Association.


(the last one may actually be more false than I'm hypothesizing here, to some degree. Not sure. I'm guessing the chemistry one is right)


To me, as a lay person, such a factor should be too important to simply dismiss, when considering the impact to trade restraint. But in the actual eyes of the law (judges), it may not matter much if at all.
Click to expand...
Not that it matters a whole lot, but grad schools/doctorate programs are absolutely in competitions for the brightest and they have been throwing money at them for years.

I have a friend who was choosing between two schools for his PhD and one factor in his decision was the amount of $$ the programs would throw at him (on top of the free education).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Not that it matters a whole lot, but grad schools/doctorate programs are absolutely in competitions for the brightest and they have been throwing money at them for years.

I have a friend who was choosing between two schools for his PhD and one factor in his decision was the amount of $$ the programs would throw at him (on top of the free education).
Click to expand...
Point well taken.

I was thinking of a hypothetical where a "star chemist" was induced with NIL (or whatever equivalent thing you want to say) to switch schools.
 

was thinking about this a little bit more and the light went on:

the MSHSL did this for one reason - to protect against a possible lawsuit.

some lawyer told the MSHSL that "if you don't have an NIL policy, some kid or his family is going to bring a court challenge." So they slapped together a policy to cover their butts.

this is how the MSHSL thinks. It's not about helping kids - it's about protecting themselves.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
was thinking about this a little bit more and the light went on:

the MSHSL did this for one reason - to protect against a possible lawsuit.

some lawyer told the MSHSL that "if you don't have an NIL policy, some kid or his family is going to bring a court challenge." So they slapped together a policy to cover their butts.

this is how the MSHSL thinks. It's not about helping kids - it's about protecting themselves.
Click to expand...
So you would rather them get sued and lose and cost the organization legal fees to end up in the same place?

Easy to criticize but I don’t see another solution.

And this is coming from a guy who thinks the MSHSL should be abolished to high school sports in MN can get a fresh start
 



short ornery norwegian said:
OK, so I read through the entire MSHSL policy.

Permissible activities are listed as:
Teaching/Instructing/Coaching. as in, a HS athlete could hold a camp for younger kids and charge a fee.
Advertising a Commercial Product or Service.
Autographs.

one of the key stipulations is that any use of NIL must NOT include any mention of a school, team or mascot.

the specific language: A student may not reference their involvement in high school activities at their school when promoting a business activity.

So, Joe Stud can do an NIL deal with Fred's Pizza, but the advertising cannot state that Joe Stud is a member of Hometown High, and cannot show Joe Stud wearing a Hometown High Jersey or use the Hometown High Mascot "Homer."

If a student is found to be in violation of the policy, they lose their remaining HS eligibility.

A kid would have to be really well-known to have endorsement value IF the ad cannot mention anything about their HS athletic involvement. Like, "Hi, I'm Jaxon Howard, and I love Fred's Pizza."
How many people would really know who Jaxon Howard is? Maybe if it was a Holmgren or Suggs situation, or Paige Bueckers in HS - but anyone short of that level, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
I agree with this in theory, but with IG, TikTok etc out there now, its crazy how many followers some of these kids have. You might not know them but maybe your 13yr old kid does and then tells you they want to eat at Fred's Pizza.
 

leib0039 said:
I agree with this in theory, but with IG, TikTok etc out there now, its crazy how many followers some of these kids have. You might not know them but maybe your 13yr old kid does and then tells you they want to eat at Fred's Pizza.
Click to expand...
Any parent that takes their 13 year old's advice on quality pizza should have all parental rights stripped & taken. 😀
 

Some guy said:
So you would rather them get sued and lose and cost the organization legal fees to end up in the same place?

Easy to criticize but I don’t see another solution.

And this is coming from a guy who thinks the MSHSL should be abolished to high school sports in MN can get a fresh start
Click to expand...
I believe you're correct. Protecting the organization does protect student-athletes and the member schools. Member schools rely on MSHSL policies to protect the member schools as well.

Lack of policy could be very costly to the 500 plus member schools if there were litigation.
 

State of Football said:
I believe you're correct. Protecting the organization does protect student-athletes and the member schools. Member schools rely on MSHSL policies to protect the member schools as well.

Lack of policy could be very costly to the 500 plus member schools if there were litigation.
Click to expand...

just saying - I know a lot of people who have dealt with the MSHSL, including coaches, referees, AD's, school superintendents, etc.

and all of them would agree on this point: the MSHSL thinks about the organization first and kids second.

if something they do is beneficial to kids, that's great.

But their first impulse is not "what can we do for kids?" their first impulse is "how do we cover our own butts?"

it's not a question of the outcome. it's a question of the motive.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
just saying - I know a lot of people who have dealt with the MSHSL, including coaches, referees, AD's, school superintendents, etc.

and all of them would agree on this point: the MSHSL thinks about the organization first and kids second.

if something they do is beneficial to kids, that's great.

But their first impulse is not "what can we do for kids?" their first impulse is "how do we cover our own butts?"

it's not a question of the outcome. it's a question of the motive.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on everything you said here

But it has nothing to do with their new NIL policy

They have to either make it legal or have it declared legal by a judge later
 

short ornery norwegian said:
just saying - I know a lot of people who have dealt with the MSHSL, including coaches, referees, AD's, school superintendents, etc.

and all of them would agree on this point: the MSHSL thinks about the organization first and kids second.

if something they do is beneficial to kids, that's great.

But their first impulse is not "what can we do for kids?" their first impulse is "how do we cover our own butts?"

it's not a question of the outcome. it's a question of the motive.
Click to expand...
And so have I as a former coach and would disagree. The member schools are not perfect and they are the MSHSL. Many disagree on what’s best for kids. Why do you think there are 7 classes of football? It’s not because the member schools or Board will profit. Without the organization, you do not have the benefits. Our non-metro schools rely heavily on their offerings and benefits. It’s okay for us to disagree.
 

In a way I'm sure some players have always been paid. I'm sure even in MN some Gopher players have gotten money. When my daughter was 12. She was a soccer star. A different club in town offered her a scholarship to play for them. Financially we would never qualify but she had a friend on the team and moved. Saved me a small fortune.
 

Cedar Rapids Gopher said:
In a way I'm sure some players have always been paid. I'm sure even in MN some Gopher players have gotten money. When my daughter was 12. She was a soccer star. A different club in town offered her a scholarship to play for them. Financially we would never qualify but she had a friend on the team and moved. Saved me a small fortune.
Click to expand...
You're saying your household made too much money to qualify for the scholarship, but because of the friend they offered it anyway? Good deal for you and her! Hope it worked out
 

State of Football said:
And so have I as a former coach and would disagree. The member schools are not perfect and they are the MSHSL. Many disagree on what’s best for kids. Why do you think there are 7 classes of football? It’s not because the member schools or Board will profit. Without the organization, you do not have the benefits. Our non-metro schools rely heavily on their offerings and benefits. It’s okay for us to disagree.
Click to expand...
The MSHSL is awful for high school football in MN and are currently destroying programs (though unintentionally).

They are so out of touch with the realities of football they don’t even see they are doing it.


If MSHSL didn’t run football, you would lose some benefits. But that’s assuming nothing would replace the MSHSL
 

Gophers_4life said:
You're saying your household made too much money to qualify for the scholarship, but because of the friend they offered it anyway? Good deal for you and her! Hope it worked out
Click to expand...
No the coach wanted her to play for them. The only reason she decided to do it was because she had a friend on the team. Unfortunately she blew her acl and mcl as a freshman and didn't play again.
 

Sorry to hear that! At least she got to have some time playing a sport she loved (hopefully). In some sense then, it is good you didn't "waste" that money ... but that is a poor way to look at it, I admit.
 

Some guy said:
The MSHSL is awful for high school football in MN and are currently destroying programs (though unintentionally).

They are so out of touch with the realities of football they don’t even see they are doing it.


If MSHSL didn’t run football, you would lose some benefits. But that’s assuming nothing would replace the MSHSL
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. The Coaches Association (MFCA) is highly engaged and creates proposals for change. Remember that change occurs through the member schools and football advisory. Last I checked, the only thing they're currently seeking is seeding at the quarterfinal level.

At one time they proposed only half the schools qualifying for post season. This was not supported by the member schools participating in football.
 

leib0039 said:
I agree with this in theory, but with IG, TikTok etc out there now, its crazy how many followers some of these kids have. You might not know them but maybe your 13yr old kid does and then tells you they want to eat at Fred's Pizza.
Click to expand...
seems like it'll benefit a good number of kids playing basketball and a select few FB players, but not too terribly many. it's become a bit mind numbing how media hungry kids have gotten and there will always be money to made in advertising that way
 


upnorthkid said:
seems like it'll benefit a good number of kids playing basketball and a select few FB players, but not too terribly many. it's become a bit mind numbing how media hungry kids have gotten and there will always be money to made in advertising that way
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Specialization is negatively impacting football.
 

State of Football said:
Totally agree. Specialization is negatively impacting football.
Click to expand...
definitely. many kids doing this in my hometown for BB and hockey (we're a town of less than 5k) where they really rely on having most/all kids go out for each sport to field teams. not just happening at the big name schools anymore
 

State of Football said:
Please elaborate. The Coaches Association (MFCA) is highly engaged and creates proposals for change. Remember that change occurs through the member schools and football advisory. Last I checked, the only thing they're currently seeking is seeding at the quarterfinal level.

At one time they proposed only half the schools qualifying for post season. This was not supported by the member schools participating in football.
Click to expand...
Not going to takeover this thread with it.

MFCA isn’t representative of the majority of coaches. It is representative of the power broker coaches

The fact that they aren’t seeking any changes is exactly what I’m talking about. Blissfully ignorant of the culling of football programs they’re doing by literally preventing some rivals from playing each other and creating a system that doesn’t create any mid-level success benchmarks to sell to the communities.


Some programs are winning and thriving.
Some programs are always bad.
There used to be a lot in the middle. Their lack of forsight and unawareness is causing the middle class of football programs to disappear. They’re short money, community support, and competitive matchups.
Once a program starts trending downward nearly impossible to dig themselves out because no freedom in scheduling. The only way you can get a schedule to revive your program is if you know somebody that can get you to shift down a class at the expense of programs in that lower class.


The MSHSL is so bad for football they don’t even know there are problems while football is dying all over the state. You’re likely part of the problem if you need that explained to you.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom