(07-08-2021 09:37 AM)dansplaining Wrote: (07-08-2021 09:17 AM)emu steve Wrote: (07-08-2021 09:05 AM)dansplaining Wrote: (07-08-2021 08:50 AM)emu steve Wrote: (07-08-2021 08:44 AM)dansplaining Wrote: Is that any different than promising playing time? Or promising bowl games? Or promising playing in front of 100k people?
Yes. Those promises are legally worthless. Unenforceable.
If 4-star recruit sues the U saying I was promised that I would start my freshman year and I didn't I wish the following remedies: 1). Ability to immediately transfer, 2). (fill in the blank).
A court would say the U promised you the usual benefits that every other scholarship FB player gets at your university. Any additional promises are not enforceable unless written because your grant in aid is the contract where promises, both ways, are made. I would think that the NCAA would prohibit any U going beyond the standard written contracts for LOI and grant in aid. All of it must pass the compliance office and the conference governing board.
E.g., a promise of a job as a FB GA after graduating would be an illegal inducement.
As far as most promises, not written, they are marketing and Brand X toothpaste can claim to be 99% effective in protecting against cavities and Brand Y will say "99.9%" or we have clinically proven the best toothpaste you can buy.
Those promises are worthless and legally just opinions. And 'opinions are like as*holes, everyone has one.'
So then how does any of that - literally even one part of that - have to do with a local business owner paying players at the popular local university to endorse his gyms? He isn't affiliated with the school. The school isn't making any promises. Everything is on the up and up and out in the open. Arrangements like this are going to happen at maybe 50-60 schools in the country in the next few years. Stop clutching your pearls and acting like Miami players getting paid (legally for the first time ever LOL) is going to be the downfall of college football. It makes you look like a complete rube.
NO!! This is CLASSIC case of booster giving extra benefits to a recruit. This is the first NCAA "commandment" "Thou shall not give extra benefits to an athlete or prospective athlete."
Now, what happens, a booster or school or coaches don't play by the rules, and someone blows the whistle. Some schools, SMU FB, were given the 'death penalty' (Craig James, 1980s was one player) for illegal stuff.
"James played on the 1981 SMU team that won the Southwest Conference title while being on NCAA probation as a result of recruiting violations dating back to the mid-1970s. ... As a result of the repeated violations, SMU received the "death penalty" from the NCAA, shutting down the program in 1987 and 1988. "
This rule goes back decades before you were even born.
BTW, this is the EMU guidance for boosters (most of us here are probably considered boosters if we bought season tickets, contributed money, etc.)
https://emueagles.com/sports/2007/12/11/...21107.aspx
Yeah i mean there have only been a bunch of court cases and state laws passed nullifying that rule. Isnt that the whole point of this thread right? To discuss how these changes in policy will effect EMU and other schools and their players.
The players being paid by local businesses for sponsorship are performing a service that has value (endorsing a project or service) and are being compensated per an agreement between those businesses and participating players. According to some recent supreme court rulings - the NCAA cant limit that anymore. Get over it.
NIL is ONLY ONE provision of the NCAA benefit rules and what SCOTUS ruled.
Hutchinson can't put on his game jersey, etc. and have a meet and greet at Little Caesars.
Nor can the EMU book store sell FB jerseys with Hutchinson's name on it.
Nor can EMU promise recruits that if they come to EMU they will be able...
I still can not invite Hutchinson for a free trip to D.C. to see if he wants to seek employment here. That's clearly 'added benefits' - that has not change.
DP: I'm surprised that EVERYONE here isn't familiar with the NCAA rules. Everyone should know them. EMU tries to publicize the booster rules. Anyone who has bought season tickets, contributed funds, etc. is a booster. Period.
Everyone should know, "everyone does it" is not a legal defense. There are indictments in NYC of a corporation and high ranking official over improper handling of fringe benefits and taxes (referred to as tax evasion).
This is from the NCAA (quoted): [Based on the NCAA rules, what the guy in Miami proposes to do would be a NCAA violation, IMHO.]
11. What is prohibited under the new policy?
Subject to state law, the following is prohibited under the new interim policy:
• NIL agreement without quid pro quo (e.g., compensation for work not performed).
•
NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular school.
• Compensation for athletic participation or achievement. Athletic performance may enhance a student-athlete’s NIL value, but athletic performance may not be the “consideration” for NIL compensation.
• Institutions providing compensation in exchange for the use of a student-athlete’s name, image or likeness.