(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

An interesting—and apparently totally above board—outcome could be actual enforcement of university academic requirements.

The window to transfer into a school after the semester has begun should warrant a fine tooth comb going through the prospective student's academic record. Give the NCAA some teeth back when it comes to forcing academic standards.

No more athlete exemptions. Most football and basketball players are already being granted a look-the-other-way when it comes to their academic record. Now that they're making millions, let's hold them accountable for their commitment to education.

Oh, I can support Carolina and still feel this way. Just wanted to make sure I address that before the usual rogues gallery pipes in with their 16-year-old remarks.

(09-02-2026 06:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

An interesting—and apparently totally above board—outcome could be actual enforcement of university academic requirements.

The window to transfer into a school after the semester has begun should warrant a fine tooth comb going through the prospective student's academic record. Give the NCAA some teeth back when it comes to forcing academic standards.

No more athlete exemptions. Most football and basketball players are already being granted a look-the-other-way when it comes to their academic record. Now that they're making millions, let's hold them accountable for their commitment to education.

Oh, I can support Carolina and still feel this way. Just wanted to make sure I address that before the usual rogues gallery pipes in with their 16-year-old remarks.

(09-02-2026 06:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

An interesting—and apparently totally above board—outcome could be actual enforcement of university academic requirements.

The window to transfer into a school after the semester has begun should warrant a fine tooth comb going through the prospective student's academic record. Give the NCAA some teeth back when it comes to forcing academic standards.

No more athlete exemptions. Most football and basketball players are already being granted a look-the-other-way when it comes to their academic record. Now that they're making millions, let's hold them accountable for their commitment to education.

Oh, I can support Carolina and still feel this way. Just wanted to make sure I address that before the usual rogues gallery pipes in with their 16-year-old remarks.

...borne from 16+ year old scars.

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

Oh, is one party now officially “an employer”?

Can’t imagine any issues arising there...

We’ll see how things go.

(09-02-2026 06:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

An interesting—and apparently totally above board—outcome could be actual enforcement of university academic requirements.

The window to transfer into a school after the semester has begun should warrant a fine tooth comb going through the prospective student's academic record. Give the NCAA some teeth back when it comes to forcing academic standards.

No more athlete exemptions. Most football and basketball players are already being granted a look-the-other-way when it comes to their academic record. Now that they're making millions, let's hold them accountable for their commitment to education.

Oh, I can support Carolina and still feel this way. Just wanted to make sure I address that before the usual rogues gallery pipes in with their 16-year-old remarks.

These are not contradictory points in my opinion.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties.

But these aren't employees. And a public educational institution can't stop its students from working and getting paid, even for relatively trivial work, and even for large amounts. That's well past where the school stops, and student's rights are firmly entrenched in the First Amendment - even more so as these are public institutions for the most part.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  As long as they have anti-trust immunity,...

Which they don't have and hopefully will never have. And even if, help us all, they were there, I wonder if you can really expand a schools 'rights' to effectively blot out a student's rights when it comes to pay. Their are no exemptions from the Constitution that I've heard of proposed in this bill.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  Same for the transfer regulations.

Even with exemptions, once you blanket disallow a class of students from potentially participating in a program at a state/federally funded public institutions that all other students can do with programs at those same universities, I see you getting into a whole lot of legal hot mess that I just don't think you can 'exempt' your way out of. Our nation has a grim bitter history with doing that sort of thing, and it has not ended well for those who wanted to impose such blanket restrictions. And in this case in particular, we all know who the majority target group is. It's not even being pretended to be any kind of a secret.

(09-02-2026 10:55 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

Oh, is one party now officially “an employer”?

Can’t imagine any issues arising there...

We’ll see how things go.

Don't play stupid.

Or are you really not capable of understand the anology?
If employers can do it with employees, colleges can restrict participation in a voluntary athletics activity to those who don't take "gifts," which is what some of the related party NIL is. Hence the reason for Deloitte evaluating whether these things are fair market.

(09-02-2026 10:59 AM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 06:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

An interesting—and apparently totally above board—outcome could be actual enforcement of university academic requirements.

The window to transfer into a school after the semester has begun should warrant a fine tooth comb going through the prospective student's academic record. Give the NCAA some teeth back when it comes to forcing academic standards.

No more athlete exemptions. Most football and basketball players are already being granted a look-the-other-way when it comes to their academic record. Now that they're making millions, let's hold them accountable for their commitment to education.

Oh, I can support Carolina and still feel this way. Just wanted to make sure I address that before the usual rogues gallery pipes in with their 16-year-old remarks.

These are not contradictory points in my opinion.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(08-31-2026 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties.

But these aren't employees. And a public educational institution can't stop its students from working and getting paid, even for relatively trivial work, and even for large amounts. That's well past where the school stops, and student's rights are firmly entrenched in the First Amendment - even more so as these are public institutions for the most part.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  As long as they have anti-trust immunity,...

Which they don't have and hopefully will never have. And even if, help us all, they were there, I wonder if you can really expand a schools 'rights' to effectively blot out a student's rights when it comes to pay. Their are no exemptions from the Constitution that I've heard of proposed in this bill.

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  Same for the transfer regulations.

Even with exemptions, once you blanket disallow a class of students from potentially participating in a program at a state/federally funded public institutions that all other students can do with programs at those same universities, I see you getting into a whole lot legal hot mess that I just don't think you can 'exempt' your way out of. Our nation has a grim bitter history with doing that sort of thing, and it has not ended well for those who wanted to impose such blanket restrictions. And in this case in particular, we all know who the majority target group is. It's not even being pretended to be any kind of a secret.

They aren't disallowing. They are simply requiring a year to sit out. That is to further the educational mission. Nobody is recruiting violinists to switch schools every year. Transferring 5 times in 5 years is detrimental to having the student-athletes graduate.

And -1 for throwing out the race card again. Baseball players are doing the same thing and Black players are a small minority there.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:55 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  [quote='bryanw1995' pid='20741407' dateline='1788211427']
PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

Oh, is one party now officially “an employer”?

Can’t imagine any issues arising there...

We’ll see how things go.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Don't play stupid.

Or are you really not capable of understand the anology?
If employers can do it with employees, colleges can restrict participation in a voluntary athletics activity to those who don't take "gifts," which is what some of the related party NIL is. [/qoute]

I'm pretty sure that when I was a student, that I couldn't be barred from joining the American Society of Mechanical Engineers just because I got "gifts". That's none of their business.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Hence the reason for Deloitte evaluating whether these things are fair market.

So when Deloitte makes these decisions, do you think they are doing a thorough professional job and objectively taking all aspects into account to decide whether that student is worth that fair market NIL? Or do you think they are not doing their jobs properly and leaving certain politically sensitive considerations out of their evaluations, making their evaluations biased and invalid? (On that note: it looks like your -1 actually was converted to a +1. Bug?)

(09-02-2026 12:43 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

Would be funnier if they had Cody Campbell and Lane Kiffin doing the ads.

Urban Meyer would probably be a good one as he had a ton of success at schools in 3 of the current P4.

Utah: 2 ranked finishes, including #4 with a Fiesta Bowl win in 2004
Florida: 2 national and 2 SEC titles
OSU: 1 national and 3 B1G titles

I know he's kinda gone off the deep end of late, but I can't think of another modern coach with those kinds of connections to most of the P4.

(09-02-2026 12:24 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:55 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2026 10:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  [quote='bryanw1995' pid='20741407' dateline='1788211427']
PCSA is, what, 170 pages long? The level of granular detail seems pretty ridiculous. I'd be ok with them passing something now, but I'd also be ok with circling back around next year and hopefully passing something that doesn't have more words than the New Testament.

Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

Oh, is one party now officially “an employer”?

Can’t imagine any issues arising there...

We’ll see how things go.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Don't play stupid.

Or are you really not capable of understand the anology?
If employers can do it with employees, colleges can restrict participation in a voluntary athletics activity to those who don't take "gifts," which is what some of the related party NIL is. [/qoute]

I'm pretty sure that when I was a student, that I couldn't be barred from joining the American Society of Mechanical Engineers just because I got "gifts". That's none of their business.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Hence the reason for Deloitte evaluating whether these things are fair market.

So when Deloitte makes these decisions, do you think they are doing a thorough professional job and objectively taking all aspects into account to decide whether that student is worth that fair market NIL? Or do you think they are not doing their jobs properly and leaving certain politically sensitive considerations out of their evaluations, making their evaluations biased and invalid? (On that note: it looks like your -1 actually was converted to a +1. Bug?)

Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 12:24 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:55 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  Granular indeed. One possible outcome here is that the most urgently desired provisions will be ruled unconstitutional while a lot of the NCAA-cosplay tinkering sticks.

__

I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

Oh, is one party now officially “an employer”?

Can’t imagine any issues arising there...

We’ll see how things go.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Don't play stupid.

Or are you really not capable of understand the anology?
If employers can do it with employees, colleges can restrict participation in a voluntary athletics activity to those who don't take "gifts," which is what some of the related party NIL is. [/qoute]

I'm pretty sure that when I was a student, that I couldn't be barred from joining the American Society of Mechanical Engineers just because I got "gifts". That's none of their business.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Hence the reason for Deloitte evaluating whether these things are fair market.

So when Deloitte makes these decisions, do you think they are doing a thorough professional job and objectively taking all aspects into account to decide whether that student is worth that fair market NIL? Or do you think they are not doing their jobs properly and leaving certain politically sensitive considerations out of their evaluations, making their evaluations biased and invalid? (On that note: it looks like your -1 actually was converted to a +1. Bug?)

Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

(09-02-2026 02:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 12:24 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 10:55 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I don't see any constitutional issues. As an employer, you can prohibit employees from accepting "gifts" from customers or related parties. As long as they have anti-trust immunity, there is no issue with the NIL regulations. Same for the transfer regulations. They still allow one transfer without sitting out. And free transfers upon graduation and if there is a coaching change or other specific reason such as a threat against you.

Oh, is one party now officially “an employer”?

Can’t imagine any issues arising there...

We’ll see how things go.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Don't play stupid.

Or are you really not capable of understand the anology?
If employers can do it with employees, colleges can restrict participation in a voluntary athletics activity to those who don't take "gifts," which is what some of the related party NIL is. [/qoute]

I'm pretty sure that when I was a student, that I couldn't be barred from joining the American Society of Mechanical Engineers just because I got "gifts". That's none of their business.

(09-02-2026 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  Hence the reason for Deloitte evaluating whether these things are fair market.

So when Deloitte makes these decisions, do you think they are doing a thorough professional job and objectively taking all aspects into account to decide whether that student is worth that fair market NIL? Or do you think they are not doing their jobs properly and leaving certain politically sensitive considerations out of their evaluations, making their evaluations biased and invalid? (On that note: it looks like your -1 actually was converted to a +1. Bug?)

Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

Its not an exact science, but they do have thorough procedures. And they are only rejecting things that are clearly outside the norm.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

(09-02-2026 02:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not an exact science, but they do have thorough procedures. And they are only rejecting things that are clearly outside the norm.

Excellent! So assuming they are indeed worthy of your trust and are behaving accordingly, then in order to decide someone's fair market NIL value they must take into account such things as:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Natural attractiveness
• Demonstrated charisma
• Nationality
• Regionality
• Age
• Team accomplishments
• Individual accomplishments
• Fanbase (niche hardcore sports boosters?)
• Popularity outside of sports
• The university they are attending (and its popularity)
• Etc, etc,....
  

So assume two student athletes get identical offers from a NIL collective. Deloitte using their absolutely objective professional analysis determines that, everything else being equal, race is the one factor that means that they deny pay for one of the athletes, but allow the same pay for the other athlete. Nothing racist or any of that crap, just pure by-the-numbers professional conduct and subsequent results.

Is this right? Do we want this kind of thing to be a part of our culture? Did we not vanquish this kind of activity a long time ago in our nation's history?

Now you might say, "but no ouflak, Deloitte would leave traits like race, gender, ethnicicy and so on, out of their analysis". Fine. But that means they aren't doing their jobs like some here have come to expect and even experienced. Because ofcourse a professional objective firm doing this kind of work must take those kinds of things into account to do the job properly. Whether we are comfortable with the hard impersonal facts or not, all of those traits have an impact, in some cases a huge impact, on the fair market value of a student athlete.

(09-02-2026 02:59 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

(09-02-2026 02:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not an exact science, but they do have thorough procedures. And they are only rejecting things that are clearly outside the norm.

Excellent! So assuming they are indeed worthy of your trust and are behaving accordingly, then in order to decide someone's fair market NIL value they must take into account such things as:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Natural attractiveness
• Demonstrated charisma
• Nationality
• Regionality
• Age
• Team accomplishments
• Individual accomplishments
• Fanbase (niche hardcore sports boosters?)
• Popularity outside of sports
• The university they are attending (and its popularity)
• Etc, etc,....
  

So assume two student athletes get identical offers from a NIL collective. Deloitte using their absolutely objective professional analysis determines that, everything else being equal, race is the one factor that means that they deny pay for one of the athletes, but allow the same pay for the other athlete. Nothing racist or any of that crap, just pure by-the-numbers professional conduct and subsequent results.

Is this right? Do we want this kind of thing to be a part of our culture? Did we not vanquish this kind of activity a long time ago in our nation's history?

Now you might say, "but no ouflak, Deloitte would leave traits like race, gender, ethnicicy and so on, out of their analysis". Fine. But that means they aren't doing their jobs like some here have come to expect and even experienced. Because ofcourse a professional objective firm doing this kind of work must take those kinds of things into account to do the job properly. Whether we are comfortable with the hard impersonal facts or not, all of those traits have an impact, in some cases a huge impact, on the fair market value of a student athlete.

Suffice it to say that each athlete will be valued upon all of the components of their uniqueness and leave it at that. Race is no more and no less a distinction than any of the many other components of each person. And if that is the case, and it is, then there is no point in emphasizing something which once introduced can be taken to extremes in an effort to dissemble a topic or exploit the situation for objectives not part of the purview of this forum. Any further prioritization of a component that is a part of each of us and which none of us can control will be considered to be out of order and the Moderation of such will be final.

(09-02-2026 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:59 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

(09-02-2026 02:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not an exact science, but they do have thorough procedures. And they are only rejecting things that are clearly outside the norm.

Excellent! So assuming they are indeed worthy of your trust and are behaving accordingly, then in order to decide someone's fair market NIL value they must take into account such things as:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Natural attractiveness
• Demonstrated charisma
• Nationality
• Regionality
• Age
• Team accomplishments
• Individual accomplishments
• Fanbase (niche hardcore sports boosters?)
• Popularity outside of sports
• The university they are attending (and its popularity)
• Etc, etc,....
  

So assume two student athletes get identical offers from a NIL collective. Deloitte using their absolutely objective professional analysis determines that, everything else being equal, race is the one factor that means that they deny pay for one of the athletes, but allow the same pay for the other athlete. Nothing racist or any of that crap, just pure by-the-numbers professional conduct and subsequent results.

Is this right? Do we want this kind of thing to be a part of our culture? Did we not vanquish this kind of activity a long time ago in our nation's history?

Now you might say, "but no ouflak, Deloitte would leave traits like race, gender, ethnicicy and so on, out of their analysis". Fine. But that means they aren't doing their jobs like some here have come to expect and even experienced. Because ofcourse a professional objective firm doing this kind of work must take those kinds of things into account to do the job properly. Whether we are comfortable with the hard impersonal facts or not, all of those traits have an impact, in some cases a huge impact, on the fair market value of a student athlete.

Suffice it to say that each athlete will be valued upon all of the components of their uniqueness and leave it at that. Race is no more and no less a distinction than any of the many other components of each person. And if that is the case, and it is, then there is no point in emphasizing something which once introduced can be taken to extremes in an effort to dissemble a topic or exploit the situation for objectives not part of the purview of this forum. Any further prioritization of a component that is a part of each of us and which none of us can control will be considered to be out of order and the Moderation of such will be final.

I think we have to separate whether Deloitte can do a good job on what it’s being hired to do with whether someone will still file a claim to challenge an NIL valuation no matter how solid the analysis is, anyway.

I totally agree with bullet on the high professional standards and expertise of Deloitte and its peer firms. I worked at a Big Four firm before and calculating valuations of unique high value assets and items is an area that they’re among the best anywhere at doing, whether it’s commercial real estate, patents, copyrights for books and movies, sports teams, etc. Media and advertising value of products and endorsers are right in their wheelhouse. I even dealt with our firm’s art valuation group on some occasions and you can’t get much more superficially subjective than valuing art. These weren’t for just giggles, either. Clients rely on these valuations in their tax filings, credit facility agreements, and other places where being wrong isn’t an option, so having a clear professional, rigorous and defensible standard is the whole basis of the profession. These aren’t people off the street relying on this expertise, but rather the world’s largest companies. I worked on a deal where the owner of one of the more prominent buildings on the Chicago skyline wanted to actually add 30 new floors on top to essentially double the size (which they did end up doing, by the way), so we had to figure out a real estate valuation for something that really hadn’t ever been done before in the Chicago market (and very few places worldwide) and predict the future property tax implications on top of it. Being wrong could cost our client millions of dollars (possibly tens of millions of dollars) and they’d probably sue us. That’s the type of level of valuations that we’d work on. Whatever you think of the exercise, they’re taking into account every factor that you can think of to apply to the valuation analysis in a methodical manner but also in compliance with applicable law. (Anti-discrimination laws do very clearly exist. I’ll leave it at that for anyone that wants to introduce a race-based strawman.)

Now, does that mean players won’t challenge these NIL valuations (that are probably quite accurate) if they get shot down? Of course not! When you have a limited window for NIL earnings, each rejection has clear potential damages and the broad economic (not just legal) incentive is to challenge that rejection.

(09-02-2026 07:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:59 PM)ouflak Wrote:  

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Having been in public accounting and done some FMV valuations, I have confidence in Deloitte's professionalism.

(09-02-2026 02:25 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I worked with some of their people on business valuations during expropriation litigation when LSU and the VA took a big chunk of New Orleans in order to build the LSU Medical Center and the VA Hospital about a decade ago.

I trust them as well. Very thorough and professional.

(09-02-2026 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not an exact science, but they do have thorough procedures. And they are only rejecting things that are clearly outside the norm.

Excellent! So assuming they are indeed worthy of your trust and are behaving accordingly, then in order to decide someone's fair market NIL value they must take into account such things as:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Natural attractiveness
• Demonstrated charisma
• Nationality
• Regionality
• Age
• Team accomplishments
• Individual accomplishments
• Fanbase (niche hardcore sports boosters?)
• Popularity outside of sports
• The university they are attending (and its popularity)
• Etc, etc,....
  

So assume two student athletes get identical offers from a NIL collective. Deloitte using their absolutely objective professional analysis determines that, everything else being equal, race is the one factor that means that they deny pay for one of the athletes, but allow the same pay for the other athlete. Nothing racist or any of that crap, just pure by-the-numbers professional conduct and subsequent results.

Is this right? Do we want this kind of thing to be a part of our culture? Did we not vanquish this kind of activity a long time ago in our nation's history?

Now you might say, "but no ouflak, Deloitte would leave traits like race, gender, ethnicicy and so on, out of their analysis". Fine. But that means they aren't doing their jobs like some here have come to expect and even experienced. Because ofcourse a professional objective firm doing this kind of work must take those kinds of things into account to do the job properly. Whether we are comfortable with the hard impersonal facts or not, all of those traits have an impact, in some cases a huge impact, on the fair market value of a student athlete.

Suffice it to say that each athlete will be valued upon all of the components of their uniqueness and leave it at that. Race is no more and no less a distinction than any of the many other components of each person. And if that is the case, and it is, then there is no point in emphasizing something which once introduced can be taken to extremes in an effort to dissemble a topic or exploit the situation for objectives not part of the purview of this forum. Any further prioritization of a component that is a part of each of us and which none of us can control will be considered to be out of order and the Moderation of such will be final.

I think we have to separate whether Deloitte can do a good job on what it’s being hired to do with whether someone will still file a claim to challenge an NIL valuation no matter how solid the analysis is, anyway.

I totally agree with bullet on the high professional standards and expertise of Deloitte and its peer firms. I worked at a Big Four firm before and calculating valuations of unique high value assets and items is an area that they’re among the best anywhere at doing, whether it’s commercial real estate, patents, copyrights for books and movies, sports teams, etc. Media and advertising value of products and endorsers are right in their wheelhouse. I even dealt with our firm’s art valuation group on some occasions and you can’t get much more superficially subjective than valuing art. These weren’t for just giggles, either. Clients rely on these valuations in their tax filings, so having a clear professional, rigorous and defensible standard is the whole basis of the profession. These aren’t people off the street relying on this expertise, but rather the world’s largest companies. I worked on a deal where the owner of one of the more prominent buildings on the Chicago skyline wanted to actually add 30 new floors on top to essentially double the size (which they did end up doing, by the way), so we had to figure out a real estate valuation for something that really hadn’t ever been done before in the Chicago market (and very few places worldwide) and predict the future property tax implications on top of it. Being wrong could cost our client millions of dollars (possibly tens of millions of dollars) and they’d probably sue us. That’s the type of level of valuations that we’d work on. Whatever you think of the exercise, they’re taking into account every factor that you can think of to apply to the valuation analysis in a methodical manner but also in compliance with applicable law. (Anti-discrimination laws do very clearly exist. I’ll leave it at that for anyone that wants to introduce a race-based strawman.)

Now, does that mean players won’t challenge these NIL valuations (that are probably quite accurate) if they get shot down? Of course not! When you have a limited window for NIL earnings, each rejection has clear potential damages and the broad economic (not just legal) incentive is to challenge that rejection.

Wow, you should be in a commercial for Deloitte. As always, couldn't disagree more. Extremely overrated personnel.

Katie Britt (R-AL, who I have down as undecided in the list I posted a few pages back,) had an interview about the PCSA yesterday. The big takeaway? She wants an SBA-style scheduling constriction to keep college football off of tvs on Friday. In her words, "we see college on Thursday or on Saturday. Then you see NFL on Sunday and Monday. We need to make sure it's very clear that we're protecting Friday for our communities...", setting aside that that Thursday thing hasn't been true for nearly a decade that would probably be another poison pill amendment if it makes it in, I can't imagine the Big Ten liking that.