MSHSL Board approves NIL policy for MN HS students

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
The NCAA, as they quite clearly say, are begging for the US Congress to pass federal law governing NIL in college athletics.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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
100% agree!
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
(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.

??
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
7,332
Points
113
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
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.
 


Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
7,332
Points
113
(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.

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

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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.
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.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
13,878
Reaction score
6,176
Points
113
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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.
Agreed.

And the deals are going to be offered, anyway.

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



Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
7,332
Points
113
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.
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).
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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).
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.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
13,878
Reaction score
6,176
Points
113
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
14,386
Reaction score
5,481
Points
113
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.
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
 



leib0039

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
935
Reaction score
1,296
Points
93
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.
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.
 

FireDaveLee

Grizzled Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
242
Points
63
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.
Any parent that takes their 13 year old's advice on quality pizza should have all parental rights stripped & taken. 😀
 

State of Football

Active member
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
221
Reaction score
177
Points
43
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
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.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
13,878
Reaction score
6,176
Points
113
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.

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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
14,386
Reaction score
5,481
Points
113
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.
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
 

State of Football

Active member
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
221
Reaction score
177
Points
43
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.
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.
 

Cedar Rapids Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
423
Reaction score
279
Points
63
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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.
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
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
14,386
Reaction score
5,481
Points
113
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.
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
 

Cedar Rapids Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
423
Reaction score
279
Points
63
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
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
891
Points
113
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.
 

State of Football

Active member
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
221
Reaction score
177
Points
43
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
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.
 

upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
1,763
Points
113
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.
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
 


State of Football

Active member
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
221
Reaction score
177
Points
43
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
Totally agree. Specialization is negatively impacting football.
 

upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
1,763
Points
113
Totally agree. Specialization is negatively impacting football.
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
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
14,386
Reaction score
5,481
Points
113
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.
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.
 




Top Bottom