Sims

stinger78 said:
I hear you and agree. However, NIL is stated to be only for name, image, and likeness. It is not directly for performance, though we all know that a player's performance dictates the value of his name, image, and likeness. It's a circular argument and it's why NIL is such a sham. The minute a performance incentive is added to NIL, it completes the circle and NIL becomes pay for play... but that's what it is already, and we all know that.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand how NIL was ever dissociated from pay for play. you're literally paying a PLAYER for no other reason except they're on a sports team. And if there's no way to cancel contract, that's just bad business. What if player gets arrested and kicked off team? You still have to pay them NIL contract?
Also, what's stopping me from making a 100k gift to next up and coming Einstein who's going to come in and do groundbreaking research that will benefit the institute because I value academics? The institute is going to benefit monetarily from their research, but they are not a paid employee. They're already getting an academic scholarship from school, but I want to sweeten the pot so they come to us instead of MIT. If that's already legal, are we not now discriminating against students who play sports? make it make sense, the more I think, the more confused I get. Total Sham.
 
greenmachine said:
I really don't understand how NIL was ever dissociated from pay for play. you're literally paying a PLAYER for no other reason except they're on a sports team. And if there's no way to cancel contract, that's just bad business. What if player gets arrested and kicked off team? You still have to pay them NIL contract?
Click to expand...

I mean, with football players, yeah. Their name, image, and likeness is valuable due to their potential athletic endeavors.

As a counterpoint, however, I don't think Olivia Dunne's image is valuable because of her ability on the uneven bars. Should she be banned from earning money from her images while competing in college sports?

How do you reconcile these two situations?
 
greenmachine said:
I really don't understand how NIL was ever dissociated from pay for play. you're literally paying a PLAYER for no other reason except they're on a sports team. And if there's no way to cancel contract, that's just bad business. What if player gets arrested and kicked off team? You still have to pay them NIL contract?
Also, what's stopping me from making a 100k gift to next up and coming Einstein who's going to come in and do groundbreaking research that will benefit the institute because I value academics? The institute is going to benefit monetarily from their research, but they are not a paid employee. They're already getting an academic scholarship from school, but I want to sweeten the pot so they come to us instead of MIT. If that's already legal, are we not now discriminating against students who play sports? make it make sense, the more I think, the more confused I get. Total Sham.
Click to expand...

You put in the contract they have to do some nominal task. Something that you can yank away or make difficult. Also have you nil renewable every year/season/month. Front load it with a signing bonus with a big payback clause (if they leave the “area”).

I also expect some shadiness in the next 5 years. These kids haven’t ever had a 6 or 7 figure contract. Not every kid is hiring a lawyer to read these contracts. I’m waiting for some 4 star to blow up in college and become the overall #1 pick only to find out they signed away 20 years worth of nil for 100k.
 
greenmachine said:
I really don't understand how NIL was ever dissociated from pay for play. you're literally paying a PLAYER for no other reason except they're on a sports team. And if there's no way to cancel contract, that's just bad business. What if player gets arrested and kicked off team? You still have to pay them NIL contract?
Also, what's stopping me from making a 100k gift to next up and coming Einstein who's going to come in and do groundbreaking research that will benefit the institute because I value academics? The institute is going to benefit monetarily from their research, but they are not a paid employee. They're already getting an academic scholarship from school, but I want to sweeten the pot so they come to us instead of MIT. If that's already legal, are we not now discriminating against students who play sports? make it make sense, the more I think, the more confused I get. Total Sham.
Click to expand...
The academic analog doesn't work because there is no NCAA trying to eliminate competitive advantage in academics. You see, we don't care all that much if Stanford gets bigger research contracts than GA Tech because we're pretty happy with where GA Tech falls on that continuum even though we're not first place. You can give all you want to the school and the only person who knows is the faculty person and the director of development. The IRS might want their chunk, though.

Competitive sports doesn't work that way. The "amateur model" has protected students from being taxed on athletic grants just like students are on scholarships.

Your hypothetical gift to that student is not a scholarship and is taxable if it's not handled the right way - through the school financial aid office as a matriculation grant if it qualifies. If it helps pay for research costs, it might be tax free. If it's just money in the student's pocket maybe not.

NIL is nowhere near either. It's purely a marketing stipend and it should be taxable, IMPO.
 
stinger78 said:
NIL is nowhere near either. It's purely a marketing stipend and it should be taxable, IMPO.
Click to expand...

I assume that NIL is fully taxable. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary and there's no reason I can see why it wouldn't be considered normal income.
 
greenmachine said:
If that's already legal, are we not now discriminating against students who play sports?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is essentially what was happening and that's why the NCAA was handed a resounding defeat in court. From a legal standpoint, it wasn't discrimination (as athletes aren't a protected class), but it was an open-and-shut antitrust violation that would have ended long ago in any other billion dollar business.

The ban on schools paying players directly is also a clear antitrust violation, one that the Supreme Court clearly signaled would fall if challenged. That's almost certainly the reason the NCAA is turning a blind eye towards NIL being used as pure pay for play -- if the biggest players, their agents, and their lawyers are getting their money via NIL, there won't be as much momentum behind mounting a challenge to the ban on schools paying players, which would threaten the wider institution of college sports.

But I guess it will still happen eventually because the current NIL situation is unsustainable. Who knows, maybe the NCAA will even get ahead of it this time and put a reasonable system in place rather than letting the courts throw the gates open.
 
andrew said:
I assume that NIL is fully taxable. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary and there's no reason I can see why it wouldn't be considered normal income.
Click to expand...
Aren't scholarships taxable?
 
JJacket said:
Aren't scholarships taxable?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. I believe scholarships are tax exempt in general.

Also just from a practical standpoint -- some of these players come from bad financial situations and couldn't take what would be a pretty significant tax bill.
 
andrew said:
Yes, that is essentially what was happening and that's why the NCAA was handed a resounding defeat in court. From a legal standpoint, it wasn't discrimination (as athletes aren't a protected class), but it was an open-and-shut antitrust violation that would have ended long ago in any other billion dollar business.

The ban on schools paying players directly is also a clear antitrust violation, one that the Supreme Court clearly signaled would fall if challenged. That's almost certainly the reason the NCAA is turning a blind eye towards NIL being used as pure pay for play -- if the biggest players, their agents, and their lawyers are getting their money via NIL, there won't be as much momentum behind mounting a challenge to the ban on schools paying players, which would threaten the wider institution of college sports.

But I guess it will still happen eventually because the current NIL situation is unsustainable. Who knows, maybe the NCAA will even get ahead of it this time and put a reasonable system in place rather than letting the courts throw the gates open.
Click to expand...
All the courts are supposed to tell you in these cases is if something is Constitutional or not. Federal courts read from the US Constitution and state courts from their state constitution. If it Constitutional, then it is legal. If it is not, then it is up to the states to decide. I dare say that paying college athletes for their NIL is not a Constitutionally protected right.

In the past, you had coaches making close to what professors made and the concept of student-athlete being trained by these men and women as non-professionals held up. Amateurism was a recognized status for one training for a profession or performing for a livelihood.

Today, that's hardly the case. Coaches, administrators, and schools are getting wealthy off of the labors of the amateurs. It becomes to look like a collusive effort to keep the players on the farm while those over them get wealthy.
 
stinger78 said:
All the courts are supposed to tell you in these cases is if something is Constitutional or not. Federal courts read from the US Constitution and state courts from their state constitution. If it Constitutional, then it is legal. If it is not, then it is up to the states to decide. I dare say that paying college athletes for their NIL is not a Constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...

I thought the courts also interpeted laws that Congress passes. So if athletes believe the NCAA is violating antitrust laws that Congress passed and they are being damaged by it, they can sue in federal court over it even though the constitution doesn't say anything about antitrust.

I know different levels of the court system are responsible for ruling on different types of things -- so for example, while a lower court may rule that the NCAA violated antitrust law, an upper court may rule that the lower court's ruling is proper because federal antitrust law is constitutional, the party that brought the suit had proper standing, etc.

But in general my understanding is that the federal court system is responsible for interpeting federal laws and ruling on cases involving them, and that the NCAA was found by the courts to have violated federal antitrust law and lost at every level that took the case, including the Supreme Court.
 
stinger78 said:
I think he could be a top notch QB if he were coached well and put in a system that was run effectively. The QB's looked wholly different after Key took over, for some reason (with the exception of the UVA game). Clearly, the quick changes that were made worked.

The top 6 games for total O were:
VPI - 463 (CBK)
UCF - 438 (CGC)
Dook - 412 (CBK)
UNC - 373 (CBK)
Miami - 363 (CBK)
WCU - 343 (CGC)

The top 6 games for passing O were:
UCF - 314 (CGC)
VPI - 253 (CBK)
Miami - 234 (CBK)
Dook - 232 (CBK)
UGAG - 215 (CBK)
FSU - 198 (CBK)

The top 6 games for rushing O were:
WCU - 243 (CGC)
Pitt - 232 (CBK)
VPI - 210 (CBK)
UNC - 186 (CBK)
Dook - 180 (CBK)
Miami - 129 (CBK)

The top 6 scoring games were:
WCU - 35 (CGC)
VPI - 28 (CBK)
Pitt - 26 (CBK)
Dook - 23 (CBK)
UNC - 21 (CBK)
FSU - 16 (CBK)
Click to expand...
The team played hard for CBK too. It was obvious they wanted him as their head coach. The way they came out popping helmets and driving the Georgia defensive line off the line of scrimmage the UGA game.
 
We should want Sims to do well. Speaks to the talent that GT gets (but admittedly can’t always hold on to - a problem that gets fixed with winning). Best case he does well and like Gibbs publicly credits Tech for making him a good player.

I just don’t see an upside to him doing poorly. And I don’t consider the petty feeling of taking pleasure in his failure an upside.
 
Buzzilla said:
Click to expand...

IMG_8608.jpeg
 
originalwombat said:
We should want Sims to do well. Speaks to the talent that GT gets (but admittedly can’t always hold on to - a problem that gets fixed with winning). Best case he does well and like Gibbs publicly credits Tech for making him a good player.

I just don’t see an upside to him doing poorly. And I don’t consider the petty feeling of taking pleasure in his failure an upside.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I for one will not be pulling for that fcking candyass quiter, in fact I would dare say he is my least favorite GT player
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top