|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 11:21:18 GMT -8
Please post factual info that substantiated. Nike does NOT pay recruits to visit. I totally understand the Nike hate, but that organization is one of the most sophisticated in the world in terms of legalities. Nike would never jeopardize their relationship with any school (since they have them with many) by blatantly breaking such a simple rule and depending on the discretion of an 18 y/o to keep it on the low down. Getting an "appraisal/market value" offer... isn't paying. Nor a promise to pay. But, please post any verification of your claims. "Nike" is sort of a blanket statement that can mean a lot of things. First and foremost, it means Knight. It also can include many of the C suite individuals who are down for the cause. In the past, it has certainly meant the brain trust of the organization when it comes to marketing and promotion. The idea of the uni's and billboards etc was not hatched by some AD intern. The question for you is...what is the controlling body that would prohibit any of these entities described above from paying players to either come to Oregon or play for Oregon? What are the guardrails here? If you don't think the apparatus of Nike isn't all in for Oregon football now you're naive. As mentioned, if it was happening on such a wide spread basis, using your "maybe it happens", you don't think some 18 y/o would tweet, snap, insta? You don't think friends would hear, family? Maybe the player who doesn't get, is shafted by said "gift" would talk? IF it happened so much more would be heard, and the entity is still the NCAA. They do have the power if affiliation and accreditation. If proven Oregon and Nike would take a huge blow. They are both smarter than that. As you stated it's not a bunch if interns running the show. There are so many legal, legal "adjacent" avenues they simply won't blatantly break rules and hope 18 y/o kids are entrusted with their future. Sh8t has been happening above and below the table since the 60's, and earlier. OSU has had their share of $ handshakes. The scale has gone up, but is in no way just Nike or Oregon. Nor are they being truly successful for all they've done. Lot's of hype, no metal. College athletics is pretty much a microcosm of the rest of our society. Oregon the rival us part of what we all hate. But, not like they lead the way.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 11:29:14 GMT -8
Please post factual info that substantiated. Nike does NOT pay recruits to visit. I totally understand the Nike hate, but that organization is one of the most sophisticated in the world in terms of legalities. Nike would never jeopardize their relationship with any school (since they have them with many) by blatantly breaking such a simple rule and depending on the discretion of an 18 y/o to keep it on the low down. Getting an "appraisal/market value" offer... isn't paying. Nor a promise to pay. But, please post any verification of your claims. "Nike" is sort of a blanket statement that can mean a lot of things. First and foremost, it means Knight. It also can include many of the C suite individuals who are down for the cause. In the past, it has certainly meant the brain trust of the organization when it comes to marketing and promotion. The idea of the uni's and billboards etc was not hatched by some AD intern. The question for you is...what is the controlling body that would prohibit any of these entities described above from paying players to either come to Oregon or play for Oregon? What are the guardrails here? If you don't think the apparatus of Nike isn't all in for Oregon football now you're naive. The OP... Nike/Oregon "pay" players to come. As mentioned, if it was happening on such a wide spread basis, using your "maybe it happens", you don't think some 18 y/o would tweet, snap, insta? You don't think friends would hear, family? Maybe the player who doesn't get, is shafted by said "gift" would talk? IF it happened so much more would be heard, and the entity is still the NCAA. They do have the power if affiliation and accreditation. If proven Oregon and Nike would take a huge blow. They are both smarter than that. As you stated it's not a bunch if interns running the show. There are so many legal, legal "adjacent" avenues they simply won't blatantly break rules and hope 18 y/o kids are entrusted with their future. Sh8t has been happening above and below the table since the 60's, and earlier. OSU has had their share of $ handshakes. The scale has gone up, but is in no way just Nike or Oregon. Nor are they being truly successful for all they've done. Lot's of hype, no metal. College athletics is pretty much a microcosm of the rest of our society. Oregon the rival us part of what we all hate. But, not like they lead the way.
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 12:01:40 GMT -8
"Nike" is sort of a blanket statement that can mean a lot of things. First and foremost, it means Knight. It also can include many of the C suite individuals who are down for the cause. In the past, it has certainly meant the brain trust of the organization when it comes to marketing and promotion. The idea of the uni's and billboards etc was not hatched by some AD intern. The question for you is...what is the controlling body that would prohibit any of these entities described above from paying players to either come to Oregon or play for Oregon? What are the guardrails here? If you don't think the apparatus of Nike isn't all in for Oregon football now you're naive. The OP... Nike/Oregon "pay" players to come. As mentioned, if it was happening on such a wide spread basis, using your "maybe it happens", you don't think some 18 y/o would tweet, snap, insta? You don't think friends would hear, family? Maybe the player who doesn't get, is shafted by said "gift" would talk? IF it happened so much more would be heard, and the entity is still the NCAA. They do have the power if affiliation and accreditation. If proven Oregon and Nike would take a huge blow. They are both smarter than that. As you stated it's not a bunch if interns running the show. There are so many legal, legal "adjacent" avenues they simply won't blatantly break rules and hope 18 y/o kids are entrusted with their future. Sh8t has been happening above and below the table since the 60's, and earlier. OSU has had their share of $ handshakes. The scale has gone up, but is in no way just Nike or Oregon. Nor are they being truly successful for all they've done. Lot's of hype, no metal. College athletics is pretty much a microcosm of the rest of our society. Oregon the rival us part of what we all hate. But, not like they lead the way. First off, the idea that kids are going to go on IG and brag on what they're making is not necessarily correct. These deals vary widely and it does a player no good to signal to his teammates how much more money he is getting than they are. These kids are managed and understand the potential ramifications of disclosing too much.
The interns I was referring to were the interns in the UO AD, not Nike.
Again, what rule is being broken (NCAA or otherwise) if Nike and its associated parties engages and pays players on behalf of Oregon? Or pays them to rep Nike and subtly (or not) guides them towards Oregon? Is Dr Pepper or Subway on the bad side of the NCAA?
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 12:17:11 GMT -8
The OP... Nike/Oregon "pay" players to come. As mentioned, if it was happening on such a wide spread basis, using your "maybe it happens", you don't think some 18 y/o would tweet, snap, insta? You don't think friends would hear, family? Maybe the player who doesn't get, is shafted by said "gift" would talk? IF it happened so much more would be heard, and the entity is still the NCAA. They do have the power if affiliation and accreditation. If proven Oregon and Nike would take a huge blow. They are both smarter than that. As you stated it's not a bunch if interns running the show. There are so many legal, legal "adjacent" avenues they simply won't blatantly break rules and hope 18 y/o kids are entrusted with their future. Sh8t has been happening above and below the table since the 60's, and earlier. OSU has had their share of $ handshakes. The scale has gone up, but is in no way just Nike or Oregon. Nor are they being truly successful for all they've done. Lot's of hype, no metal. College athletics is pretty much a microcosm of the rest of our society. Oregon the rival us part of what we all hate. But, not like they lead the way. First off, the idea that kids are going to go on IG and brag on what they're making is not necessarily correct. These deals vary widely and it does a player no good to signal to his teammates how much more money he is getting than they are. These kids are managed and understand the potential ramifications of disclosing too much.
The interns I was referring to were the interns in the UO AD, not Nike.
Again, what rule is being broken (NCAA or otherwise) if Nike and its associated parties engages and pays players on behalf of Oregon? Or pays them to rep Nike and subtly (or not) guides them towards Oregon? Is Dr Pepper or Subway on the bad side of the NCAA?
First I'm not going to argue the obvious... kids go online and brag about EVERYTHING. Sometimes not to brag but to post cuz everyone should know everyone else's crap?! But, "supposed" NIL deals are posted all the time... "offers" that never existed or were bogus to get kids to sign. Kids are "managed"? You mean a disgruntled kid would never out a school or coach? Happens quite often, in fact a Georgia signee outed another school for a supposed NIL offer this week. Interns... either way... the decision makers are not going to risk severe penalties. There are too many other ways within the guidelines to entice kids. Which in and of itself is a violation being discussed now at the the NCAA and coaches level... pay for play and enticing payers to sign. What will happen? Who knows. How strong the enforcement, if any? Who knows. But, in reality it is business people taking advantage of an "open window". This issue was thrust upon the NCAA by a court decision and no one, NCAA or Universities have caught up to all the implications. Paying players is called enticement or pay to play. Been punished and enforced for quite a while. The investigation process is lengthy and often is finalized well after the "guilty" have gone. The enforcement has been weak, uneven since the Pony Express scandal and death penalty to SMU. But, inducements to players are indeed NCAA violations and are a annual occurrence mostly self reported minor recruiting violations. More serious ones are typically quite lengthy and under wraps until the NCAA hands the university a notice of alleged allegations. Weak system, but your question was what rule/entity.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 2, 2024 12:32:21 GMT -8
Until that Georgia kid names the school (has that changed yet?) he really hasn't outed anyone.
That said, Georgia supposedly spent 4.5 million on their recruiting budget for football... and that's outside of NIL. Football is big business at some schools.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 2, 2024 12:35:41 GMT -8
It's an interesting question. It's hard to gauge the effect of the NIL on OSU this season because of the players following JS to MSU and others leaving no doubt in part because of the cloudy future of the program or the immediate reality of no longer being a part of the Pac-12. Getting better NIL deals are sure to be among the reasons driving many of those who have bailed. But it's hard to say how many players would have actually left if those changes hadn't happened. IMO, the current combination of the NIL and the transfer portal will damage many programs and widen the gap between the big money schools and others. Even with that gap, OSU was able to play in 13 bowl games and had the 11-1 Fiesta Bowl season, two 10-win seasons and three 9-win seasons in the last 25 years, all with a six-year stretch of futility due to GA and the setback of 2020 after Smith had the Beavers at 5-7 and tied for second in the North Division. But the current situation makes it all the more difficult moving forward. My hope is that there are some parameters put in place in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 12:51:32 GMT -8
Until that Georgia kid names the school (has that changed yet?) he really hasn't outed anyone. That said, Georgia supposedly spent 4.5 million on their recruiting budget for football... and that's outside of NIL. Football is big business at some schools. Technically not a specific school, although he only took two other official visits. But, he outed what is happening and illegal. NIL can't be used to entice kids to sign. If enough kids would do the same, even unintentionally, it can trigger investigations and helps the cause of those seeking legislation of some kind. For the wild west to be tamed there has to be a start, and even the littlest of things can become the impetus for change. A perfect example is the NIL itself. No one thought the initial 2009 O'Bannon class action suit would ever lead to what is happening today.
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 12:52:27 GMT -8
First off, the idea that kids are going to go on IG and brag on what they're making is not necessarily correct. These deals vary widely and it does a player no good to signal to his teammates how much more money he is getting than they are. These kids are managed and understand the potential ramifications of disclosing too much.
The interns I was referring to were the interns in the UO AD, not Nike.
Again, what rule is being broken (NCAA or otherwise) if Nike and its associated parties engages and pays players on behalf of Oregon? Or pays them to rep Nike and subtly (or not) guides them towards Oregon? Is Dr Pepper or Subway on the bad side of the NCAA?
First I'm not going to argue the obvious... kids go online and brag about EVERYTHING. Sometimes not to brag but to post cuz everyone should know everyone else's crap?! But, "supposed" NIL deals are posted all the time... "offers" that never existed or were bogus to get kids to sign. Kids are "managed"? You mean a disgruntled kid would never out a school or coach? Happens quite often, in fact a Georgia signee outed another school for a supposed NIL offer this week. Interns... either way... the decision makers are not going to risk severe penalties. There are too many other ways within the guidelines to entice kids. Which in and of itself is a violation being discussed now at the the NCAA and coaches level... pay for play and enticing payers to sign. What will happen? Who knows. How strong the enforcement, if any? Who knows. But, in reality it is business people taking advantage of an "open window". This issue was thrust upon the NCAA by a court decision and no one, NCAA or Universities have caught up to all the implications. Paying players is called enticement or pay to play. Been punished and enforced for quite a while. The investigation process is lengthy and often is finalized well after the "guilty" have gone. The enforcement has been weak, uneven since the Pony Express scandal and death penalty to SMU. But, inducements to players are indeed NCAA violations and are a annual occurrence mostly self reported minor recruiting violations. More serious ones are typically quite lengthy and under wraps until the NCAA hands the university a notice of alleged allegations. Weak system, but your question was what rule/entity. I guess i don't follow enough kids on social media. I see enough tweets and FB quotes from Beaver accts to know it is not happening a lot, if at all. These kids have 'agents' who manage their NIL deals, so yes...they are managed.
You still haven't answered a simple question...what severe penalties are you referring to? You mentioned the court case that largely took the NCAA out of the picture when it comes to paying 'amateur' athletes, so what rules are being broken by companies like Nike if they engage with and compensate a player? I am not talking about schools paying kids here, I am talking about private companies and boosters, which are indistinguishable now. Boosters and private companies don't 'self report' because they are not under the purview of the NCAA (supported by the court decision).
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 2, 2024 13:02:20 GMT -8
First I'm not going to argue the obvious... kids go online and brag about EVERYTHING. Sometimes not to brag but to post cuz everyone should know everyone else's crap?! But, "supposed" NIL deals are posted all the time... "offers" that never existed or were bogus to get kids to sign. Kids are "managed"? You mean a disgruntled kid would never out a school or coach? Happens quite often, in fact a Georgia signee outed another school for a supposed NIL offer this week. Interns... either way... the decision makers are not going to risk severe penalties. There are too many other ways within the guidelines to entice kids. Which in and of itself is a violation being discussed now at the the NCAA and coaches level... pay for play and enticing payers to sign. What will happen? Who knows. How strong the enforcement, if any? Who knows. But, in reality it is business people taking advantage of an "open window". This issue was thrust upon the NCAA by a court decision and no one, NCAA or Universities have caught up to all the implications. Paying players is called enticement or pay to play. Been punished and enforced for quite a while. The investigation process is lengthy and often is finalized well after the "guilty" have gone. The enforcement has been weak, uneven since the Pony Express scandal and death penalty to SMU. But, inducements to players are indeed NCAA violations and are a annual occurrence mostly self reported minor recruiting violations. More serious ones are typically quite lengthy and under wraps until the NCAA hands the university a notice of alleged allegations. Weak system, but your question was what rule/entity. I guess i don't follow enough kids on social media. I see enough tweets and FB quotes from Beaver accts to know it is not happening a lot, if at all. These kids have 'agents' who manage their NIL deals, so yes...they are managed.
You still haven't answered a simple question...what severe penalties are you referring to? You mentioned the court case that largely took the NCAA out of the picture when it comes to paying 'amateur' athletes, so what rules are being broken by companies like Nike if they engage with and compensate a player? I am not talking about schools paying kids here, I am talking about private companies and boosters, which are indistinguishable now. Boosters and private companies don't 'self report' because they are not under the purview of the NCAA (supported by the court decision).
They don't have agents. That would be an NCAA violation.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 13:09:32 GMT -8
First I'm not going to argue the obvious... kids go online and brag about EVERYTHING. Sometimes not to brag but to post cuz everyone should know everyone else's crap?! But, "supposed" NIL deals are posted all the time... "offers" that never existed or were bogus to get kids to sign. Kids are "managed"? You mean a disgruntled kid would never out a school or coach? Happens quite often, in fact a Georgia signee outed another school for a supposed NIL offer this week. Interns... either way... the decision makers are not going to risk severe penalties. There are too many other ways within the guidelines to entice kids. Which in and of itself is a violation being discussed now at the the NCAA and coaches level... pay for play and enticing payers to sign. What will happen? Who knows. How strong the enforcement, if any? Who knows. But, in reality it is business people taking advantage of an "open window". This issue was thrust upon the NCAA by a court decision and no one, NCAA or Universities have caught up to all the implications. Paying players is called enticement or pay to play. Been punished and enforced for quite a while. The investigation process is lengthy and often is finalized well after the "guilty" have gone. The enforcement has been weak, uneven since the Pony Express scandal and death penalty to SMU. But, inducements to players are indeed NCAA violations and are a annual occurrence mostly self reported minor recruiting violations. More serious ones are typically quite lengthy and under wraps until the NCAA hands the university a notice of alleged allegations. Weak system, but your question was what rule/entity. I guess i don't follow enough kids on social media. I see enough tweets and FB quotes from Beaver accts to know it is not happening a lot, if at all. These kids have 'agents' who manage their NIL deals, so yes...they are managed.
You still haven't answered a simple question...what severe penalties are you referring to? You mentioned the court case that largely took the NCAA out of the picture when it comes to paying 'amateur' athletes, so what rules are being broken by companies like Nike if they engage with and compensate a player? I am not talking about schools paying kids here, I am talking about private companies and boosters, which are indistinguishable now. Boosters and private companies don't 'self report' because they are not under the purview of the NCAA (supported by the court decision).
I'm not sure about recent events, but "boosters" and companies can actually be forced to not associate with a university. The university can be compelled by the NCAA not to associate with certain boosters or face penalties. So, yes, the business can't be punished, but can be eliminated from association with the school, by the NCAA. Also players can have "legal" advisors to help with NIL contractual info, but not "street" or any other agents. One way to help curb the NIL IMHO would be to have any and ALL NIL organizations have to file papers (TBD) and background checks to be registered as sports agents are. Miami WBB had a case just recently of impermissible inducements/meals from a booster. Coached served 3 game suspension, $5k fine + 1% of the WBB budget, 1 year probation, and major sanctions for any new violation. The two players got nothing as the NCAA does not want to punish players for breaking rules they may not fully understand and they want players to fee safe in reporting violation. And the negotiated settlement allowed the booster (Ruiz)to remain associated because of the level of infraction. But, initially he was to be banned. Michigan "scouting" investigation is now ongoing as it was found a booster may have funded the scouting/sign stealing scheme. If so, the booster could be banned from affiliating with UM and UM punished for the violation and any future association. Again, still a very weak system given the staffing it takes to do said investigations and the time frame. But the NCAA and coaches' committee is aware of the damage and working on solutions. I doubt it will be enough and probably face legal challenges, but one has to start somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jan 2, 2024 13:41:01 GMT -8
I guess i don't follow enough kids on social media. I see enough tweets and FB quotes from Beaver accts to know it is not happening a lot, if at all. These kids have 'agents' who manage their NIL deals, so yes...they are managed.
You still haven't answered a simple question...what severe penalties are you referring to? You mentioned the court case that largely took the NCAA out of the picture when it comes to paying 'amateur' athletes, so what rules are being broken by companies like Nike if they engage with and compensate a player? I am not talking about schools paying kids here, I am talking about private companies and boosters, which are indistinguishable now. Boosters and private companies don't 'self report' because they are not under the purview of the NCAA (supported by the court decision).
They don't have agents. That would be an NCAA violation. Actually the athletes are allowed to have agents working for them related to NIL. That was a recent rule change when NIL came into effect. It is a bit confusing when talking about incentives for a kid to sign with a school. The DAM Nation NIL Cooperative is in place to help OSU student-athletes align with NIL opportunities. The dollars for that NIL cooperative naturally come from OSU fans / boosters. So, if during a recruiting visit a coach from OSU provides contact information for Dam Nation is that a violation? If so, why would it be a violation. The school/AD did not provide an incentive. The school/AD did not offer anything from the NIL cooperative. They just gave the kid a phone number and email address (public information), just like they would for finding an apartment in Corvallis. And the logical discussion with Dam Nation would in fact include what type of program the kid could expect from Dam Nation once he enrolls at OSU. Is that providing an incentive to sign a letter of intent with OSU by Dam Nation? Now reach the next step. There are in fact High School kids with NO COLLEGIATE Affiliation at this time, signing NIL deals. The kid could in fact receive dollars from a business to help market their product or service while a Senior in high school. That business transaction is completely legal independent of what rules the NCAA might want to create to control the NIL incentives for recruits. The basic point is that any student can sign any contract they wish (typically with a legal guardian or parent for any age limitation) for any dollar amount without affecting their eligibility to participate in collegiate athletics administered by the NCAA. What creates the "uneven playing field" are the collectives that solicit donations from fans / boosters of certain schools. Certain schools have large alumni bases or a cadre of large dollar donors that connect part of their happiness to the outcome of sporting events at a particular school Heck, it is part of the reason that Dam Nation solicits like they do, to gather dollars to offer opportunities to the student-athletes at OSU. It isn't actually NIL as a compensation tool for collegiate athletes that creates the disparity, it is as it has always been - some schools have donor bases that want their alma mater to be successful in sports and are willing to direct money in this way. While other schools don't have the donor base.
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Jan 2, 2024 13:41:32 GMT -8
I guess i don't follow enough kids on social media. I see enough tweets and FB quotes from Beaver accts to know it is not happening a lot, if at all. These kids have 'agents' who manage their NIL deals, so yes...they are managed.
You still haven't answered a simple question...what severe penalties are you referring to? You mentioned the court case that largely took the NCAA out of the picture when it comes to paying 'amateur' athletes, so what rules are being broken by companies like Nike if they engage with and compensate a player? I am not talking about schools paying kids here, I am talking about private companies and boosters, which are indistinguishable now. Boosters and private companies don't 'self report' because they are not under the purview of the NCAA (supported by the court decision).
They don't have agents. That would be an NCAA violation. yes they do.. athleticdirectoru.com/sanil/a-sports-agents-role-in-the-world-of-nil-part-i/
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 2, 2024 14:16:33 GMT -8
OK. That was a Florida article and I know the rules differ based on the state. I thought that Oregon was still only allowing attorneys to review the contracts. I guess I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 2, 2024 14:31:01 GMT -8
OK. That was a Florida article and I know the rules differ based on the state. I thought that Oregon was still only allowing attorneys to review the contracts. I guess I was wrong. Essentially you were not. They can't act as "sport's" agents offering money in turn for services and acting in getting them professional contracts. Almost every state requires NIL "agents" to be legally certified (not "street" agent/Willie types) and some states they have to be a member of the Bar. This a far cry from a typical sports agent. Sport's Agencies have legal teams, but Sport's Agents are not necessarily versed in contract law, especially the ones that would be involve in the majority of NIL deals that are not in the 5, 6 figure+ arena. So, in Oregon an "agent" can assist a player in the legalese and give advice. They can even charge a fee. But, they can not give money or loans based on future earnings like a sports agent. But, as mentioned the mess continues as every state has their own rules, some very few.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 2, 2024 14:49:14 GMT -8
OK. That was a Florida article and I know the rules differ based on the state. I thought that Oregon was still only allowing attorneys to review the contracts. I guess I was wrong. Essentially you were not. They can't act as "sport's" agents offering money in turn for services and acting in getting them professional contracts. Almost every state requires NIL "agents" to be legally certified (not "street" agent/Willie types) and some states they have to be a member of the Bar. This a far cry from a typical sports agent. Sport's Agencies have legal teams, but Sport's Agents are not necessarily versed in contract law, especially the ones that would be involve in the majority of NIL deals that are not in the 5, 6 figure+ arena. So, in Oregon an "agent" can assist a player in the legalese and give advice. They can even charge a fee. But, they can not give money or loans based on future earnings like a sports agent. But, as mentioned the mess continues as every state has their own rules, some very few. OK, that's what I thought.
|
|