**Running College Football Updates Thread**
- Thread starter TFloss32
- Start date
I don't like this. I understand the eligibility rules and he is eligible but he is a man playing with boys. And for what? He thinks he will play in the NFL?
Cosby didn't wait a decade to go to college. I don't think this guy will do much. Especially at Arky.
I think the Supreme Court already decided this. The NCAA and schools aren't allowed to regulate the third party payments. I guess if the third parties agree they won't get paid but that might be collusion since the schools aren't supposed to control the NIL.
Boise State welcome to 1 star recruits.
You have to be very sure of yourself as coach and recruiter to take this stance.
Seems similar to what coach Sanders saying I'm not doing visits, you come to me.
You can try to make rules that go against the norms, maybe it will somehow work out, but you are clearly putting your school at a recruiting disadvantage.
Biggest issue is, he has no grounds to make this claim. What he is saying means 1 of 2 things:
1. He controls the players NIL contracts which is not allowed
2. He plans to prevent players from signing NIL deals, which has been shown to be unconstitutional
It may be against the rules, but everyone believes that the coaches have a great deal of say in who gets how much NIL.
In college football you have many rules in place that everyone knows aren't going to be enforced by the toothless ncaa, so are mostly ignored.
Of course they do. Problem is, you can't say the quiet part out loud.
There has been talk about bringing the NIL Collectives in house, which would allow coaches to have an actual say on some of this. Even then, all the NIL deals outside of the collective are still on the table for players and coaches won't be allowed to interfere with those.
If players have to sign a contract to play in a league, can there be a clause in the contract to assign all NIL rights to the school/league or is that still unconstitutional? And I don't understand how outlawing "pay for play" NIL deals can be constitutional if NIL can't be limited in other ways? I'm dazed and confused.
Signing away your NIL rights was the old rule that was found unconstitutional. Just think of the issues in professional sports if the leagues told Lebron James or Patrick Mahomes or Shohai Ohtani, we own your endorsement rights.
The NCAA was able to dictate that NIL contracts could not be contingent on attendance at a particular school but that was about the only restriction they were able to have in place.
And that restriction is toothless because this is exactly what is occurring in reality, but not on paper.