Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA: DI Board of Directors issues NIL guidance to schools, can retroactively punish

Collapse

First Unread Thread Button

Collapse

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    NCAA: DI Board of Directors issues NIL guidance to schools, can retroactively punish

    https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/5/9/media-center-di-board-of-directors-issues-name-image-and-likeness-guidance-to-schools.aspx

    The Division I Board of Directors on Monday issued guidance to schools regarding the intersection between recruiting activities and the name, image and likeness environment.

    Board members emphasized a continued support for the ability of student-athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness. The guidance is intended to provide clarity for those engaging in a rapidly evolving NIL environment, acknowledging that the environment will continue to evolve, and ongoing attention will be needed to ensure student-athletes are able to benefit from these opportunities.

    The guidance was developed by a task force of national leaders with student-athlete opportunity at the forefront of discussions. Specifically, the guidance defines as a booster any third-party entity that promotes an athletics program, assists with recruiting or assists with providing benefits to recruits, enrolled student-athletes or their family members. The definition could include "collectives" set up to funnel name, image and likeness deals to prospective student-athletes or enrolled student-athletes who might be considering transferring. NCAA recruiting rules preclude boosters from recruiting and/or providing benefits to prospective student-athletes.

    The guidance is effective immediately. For violations that occurred prior to May 9, 2022, the board directed the enforcement staff to review the facts of individual cases but to pursue only those actions that clearly are contrary to the published interim policy, including the most severe violations of recruiting rules or payment for athletics performance. Schools are reminded of their obligation to report any potential violations through the traditional self-reporting process.

    "Today, the Division I Board of Directors took a significant first step to address some of the challenges and improper behaviors that exist in the name, image and likeness environment that may violate our long-established recruiting rules. While the NCAA may pursue the most outrageous violations that were clearly contrary to the interim policy adopted last summer, our focus is on the future. The new guidance establishes a common set of expectations for the Division I institutions moving forward, and the board expects all Division I institutions to follow our recruiting rules and operate within these reasonable expectations," said board chair Jere Morehead, president, University of Georgia.

    The board noted that the emphasis of this NIL guidance is on boosters in the recruiting process and is not intended to question the eligibility of prospective and enrolled student-athletes involved in NIL deals. Only the most serious actions that clearly violate the previously published interim policy would have eligibility implications.

    The board adopted the interim guidance last summer with an understanding that they would consider further guidance as the name, image and likeness environment developed. This additional guidance is appropriate now as there is better understanding about the impact on student-athletes. Board members also urged schools to investigate, detect and self-report violations and cooperate with the NCAA enforcement staff as they investigate.

    Board members acknowledged that more work must be done and asked the Division I Council to continue exploring additional measures to better ensure name, image and likeness opportunities align with NCAA values and protect the well-being of student-athletes.



    #2
    USuc and Aggie must be punished retroactively to set an example for the rest of D1. I don't expect TBOW or Jimbo to self-report. Barry can report the muthas. Tell em it ain't good for college football.
    Last edited by MichSooner; 05-09-2022, 04:13 PM.

    Comment


      #3

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by MichSooner View Post
        USuc and Aggie must be punished retroactively to set an example for the rest of D1. I don't expect TBOW or Jimbo to self-report. Barry can report the muthas. Tell em it ain't good for college football.
        Well, just imagine how outta whack this would've been if USC & Riley, had no NFL competition from the World Champ Rams (& Chargers) in Los Angeles...

        Comment


          #5
          Is this a joke?

          Comment


            #6
            The only thing....ONLY thing...that might rein in the NIL shit is if conferences start doing it themselves. Hypothetically, the SEC could impose some standard, and if A&M didn't like it, they could leave the conference.

            Sure, it would come as a competitive disadvantage for a conference if its member schools had different NIL standards...but if conferences colluded to set standards.......well, that's a different lawsuit down the road.

            Comment


              #7
              Well at least they aren't sitting on their ass anymore, but of course this comes on the heels of OU having to establish an NIL collective just to be competitive. It's kind of like MLB letting roids run rampant in baseball and then finally deciding to get serious when half its players were juiced up.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
                It's kind of like MLB letting roids run rampant in baseball and then finally deciding to get serious when half its players were juiced up.
                that’s actually a great analogy

                Comment


                  #9
                  All the associated attorneys will be ordering new boats or pools for the backyards. And a few who aren’t yet “associated.”

                  Comment


                    #10
                    This will amount to nothing

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
                      Well at least they aren't sitting on their ass anymore, but of course this comes on the heels of OU having to establish an NIL collective just to be competitive. It's kind of like MLB letting roids run rampant in baseball and then finally deciding to get serious when half its players were juiced up.
                      I don't remember the details of the roids issue. Were they illegal and just not screened/enforced? Or did the rule change and people got caught up in it?

                      If I understnad NIL correctly, the rules have been basically in place, but no one from NCAA was doing anything to enforce them. If that is the case, then I don't have a problem with schools getting hammered for breaking the rules, whether they were previously being enforced or not. If the rules are new, I have a big problem with any retroactive enforcement against schools, boosters or players. In that case, let the deals/contracts already signed run their course and not allow anything new.

                      Regardless, it is still a mess.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Someone wants a retroactive piece of the payout pie

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Middle Aged Man View Post

                          I don't remember the details of the roids issue. Were they illegal and just not screened/enforced? Or did the rule change and people got caught up in it?

                          If I understnad NIL correctly, the rules have been basically in place, but no one from NCAA was doing anything to enforce them. If that is the case, then I don't have a problem with schools getting hammered for breaking the rules, whether they were previously being enforced or not. If the rules are new, I have a big problem with any retroactive enforcement against schools, boosters or players. In that case, let the deals/contracts already signed run their course and not allow anything new.

                          Regardless, it is still a mess.
                          MLB didn't start testing for roids until '03, and even then I think it was confidential, maybe to gauge the extent of the steroid problem in the league. By then, of course, you had multiple non-steroid ways to supplement and get beefed up. Andro was quite legal for a long time, and McGwire used that openly. You could get that stuff at your local GNC. The issue with Bonds, BALCO, and "the cream and the clear" is those were old steroids which never officially went through FDA approval and thus were never registered so there was never a way to test for them since they were an unknown composition.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            This seems very problematic. The guidelines are still far too ambiguous.

                            We had schools for almost a year who were clearly violating the policy. Schools like BYU and Miami were the obvious early examples but then Texas's program was the most blatant. The rumored $50k / year program that OU was discussing would clearly violate the policy.

                            What are schools to do now? Nothing and lose ground to the schools who are blatantly violating the policy with a hope that one day the NCAA will render a judgement against these schools? While waiting for the NCAA to get its shit together, schools taking a more careful conservative approach could completely lose their ability to compete.

                            The NCAA could have immediately sent a cease and desist letter to the schools who were essentially creating a pay-for-play policy but by waiting a year they have set the expectation that such actions were within the rules.

                            It's just all mess.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Why does this seem like the gal with three kids claiming that they’re all gonna get it if they don’t keep acting up. She then rewards the little shitheads with ice cream. Except for the middle child… he gets his ass switched and spends an hour in the tool shed for timeout.

                              Aside… this sure seems like it targets OUr little 50K incentive idea just as much as it is going after the million dollar man ideas Ohio State, Bammer, Jawja and the Texas schools are orchestrating.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                The board noted that the emphasis of this NIL guidance is on boosters in the recruiting process and is not intended to question the eligibility of prospective and enrolled student-athletes involved in NIL deals. Only the most serious actions that clearly violate the previously published interim policy would have eligibility implications.
                                This is a rather interesting way of enforcement, if the NCAA actually follows through. They are only going after the schools and boosters. Players can sign whatever NIL deal they want unless it was egregiously bad. The NIL laws are focused around the players signing deals, and by going this route, the players eligibility isn't being impacted at all, so the laws really aren't violated.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  This seems like the NCAA is slamming the barn door after the horses have already run off.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    From The Brainiacs. Open Post | Wednesday, May 11th - The Football Brainiacs - OU Edition

                                    Unpacking new NCAA Rules on NIL

                                    – Super K – Posted on: May 10, 2022

                                    ***Last night, the NCAA announced new rules regarding the NIL of student-athletes.

                                    ***I’m hoping to speak to someone in compliance to get some clarification on the new rules but I want to offer up some of my initial thoughts based on my reading of the new rules.

                                    ***I’ll say at the outset that I think the rules will go a long way in resolving some of the issues I’ve previously commented on and some of the issues I know many of you have with the NIL.

                                    ***Also, to preempt three comments that invariably come up when talking about the NCAA rulings and NIL, I’ll say…

                                    ***Yes, there are going to continue to be people who cheat – who partake in illicit activity despite the NCAA rules. But, it’s really simple – when something is illicit A LOT less of it happens. There are just a lot fewer people willing to cheat. Cheating will always be an issue but a program can navigate around that. The NIL structure as it was playing out over the past months was something that no one could navigate around and it was only going to get worse.

                                    ***And yes, the NCAA isn’t perfect but they absolutely do thwart a lot of cheating.

                                    ***And, this is just my opinion, but I strongly believe that the way these rulings have been set up will make the NCAA victorious in any lawsuits that may arise. NIL has legal meanings and it’s clear from the language of the new rules that they are working to ensure that the legal meaning of NIL is respected and the NIL as a pretext for inducement is rooted out.

                                    ***This distinction between what is bonafide NIL and inducement is something I’ve harped on for the past few months. The NCAA has now made an overt commentary about this very issue and in my reading of the new rulings that is the heart of the matter.

                                    ***They are putting in place rules to clearly distinguish between actual NIL – Mastercard or Pepsi assess the value of a player’s NIL, for example, and pay a reasonable/justifiable rate for the use of said player’s NIL – and inducement – I’m a Texas State booster who owns an oil company and I want 200K in the pockets of a high school kid so that he will go to Texas State.

                                    ***Over the past few months boosters have gotten intimately involved in the process. I can tell you that many of them are speaking directly to players at the behest of the coaches. Many of them are offering kids compensation whether they’re PSAs (prospective student-athletes) or transfers. As one person described it to me, “they’re playing fantasy football with the kids.”

                                    ***That will now be a clear violation. The traditional NCAA booster definition returns and boosters are not permitted to communicate with athletes regarding recruitment. Collectives will also be seen as boosters so they too will be subject to the same prohibitions.

                                    ***A particular interesting new rule that depending on how it’s interpreted is going to upend a lot of the deals that are being made or were made reads as follows.

                                    “An NIL agreement between a SA (student athlete) and a booster/NIL entity may not be guaranteed or promised contingent on initial or continuing enrollment at a particular institution.”

                                    Rules go on later to say…

                                    “Athletics participation for pay and payments based on performance or given on an incentive basis are prohibited.”

                                    ***So, as you can imagine, a number of the deals for the high school students were not only contingent on them attending a particular school, but were also broken up as payments over the course of years. Those are classic cases of inducement as the agreements are clearly based on the “initial or continuing enrollment at a particular institution.” Any deal like that is going to be prohibited so if boosters want to do it, it’ll have to go back under the table where as I’ve said, it’s a lot harder to find that many big time donors willing to do that. And they certainly aren’t going to do it for just anyone – which is what was beginning to happen.

                                    ***This looks like it’s not only going to nullify a number of individual agreements but depending on how it’s interpreted it could nullify position based agreements.

                                    ***Bottom line here is that if a PSA is going to get paid then that payment needs to be based on the actual value of the SA to whatever business they’re promoting and not based on where they go to school. As I’ve said before, if you’re a TAMU booster with a car dealership in Dallas, it shouldn’t matter if you have an NIL deal with the OU QB or the Texas QB, what should matter is their market value. Unless, of course, your real intent for paying the TAMU QB is to ensure he remains at TAMU. These rules are meant to end all of that.

                                    ***Within the new rules there appears to be a pretty broad catch-all clause that, in my opinion, looks like a smell test that NCAA is requiring institutions to use when evaluating the NIL deals.

                                    The relevant section says…

                                    “NIL agreements must be based on an independent, case-by-case analysis of the value that each athlete brings to a NIL agreement as opposed to providing compensation or incentives for enrollment decisions (e.g., signing a letter of intent or transferring), athletic performance (e.g., points scored, minutes played, winning a contest), achievement (e.g., starting position, award winner) or membership on a team.”

                                    It appears the NCAA is going to basically hold institutions accountable if they’re allowing NIL deals to go through that don’t appear bonafide and instead look like inducement. In other words, if a PSA is receiving a 200K NIL deal, that’s not going to pass a reasonableness test. If it looks like an inducement, it’s going to get blocked.

                                    ***I’ll also note that within the rules that were sent to compliance departments, the NCAA noted that the list of guidelines/rules was non-exhaustive. I emphasize that again, indicates that the real intent here whether a stipulation is delineated or not, is to root out inducement and booster involvement. This is only the beginning, in other words, of the regulations as the institutions and the NCAA work to get the NIL back to what it was intended to be and not a pretext to buy players.

                                    ***Also, I can tell you there is broad support for this. As far as I can tell, most of the coaches despise the current form of NIL and the institutions seem to feel the same way.

                                    ***Lastly, you may recall that I had noted a few months back that I’d heard the NCAA was especially upset with one or two institutions that they felt were really egregious in their manipulation of the NIL rules (neither school we cover was included). And I had heard there were people within the NCAA that wanted to leave the door open to retroactively go after those schools…

                                    ***It looks like that is indeed their now stated intent as the NCAA announced last night that they will have the authority to go after programs that committed egregious violations on a retroactive basis.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by MichSooner View Post
                                      From The Brainiacs. Open Post | Wednesday, May 11th - The Football Brainiacs - OU Edition

                                      Unpacking new NCAA Rules on NIL

                                      – Super K – Posted on: May 10, 2022

                                      ***Last night, the NCAA announced new rules regarding the NIL of student-athletes.

                                      ***I’m hoping to speak to someone in compliance to get some clarification on the new rules but I want to offer up some of my initial thoughts based on my reading of the new rules.

                                      ***I’ll say at the outset that I think the rules will go a long way in resolving some of the issues I’ve previously commented on and some of the issues I know many of you have with the NIL.

                                      ***Also, to preempt three comments that invariably come up when talking about the NCAA rulings and NIL, I’ll say…

                                      ***Yes, there are going to continue to be people who cheat – who partake in illicit activity despite the NCAA rules. But, it’s really simple – when something is illicit A LOT less of it happens. There are just a lot fewer people willing to cheat. Cheating will always be an issue but a program can navigate around that. The NIL structure as it was playing out over the past months was something that no one could navigate around and it was only going to get worse.

                                      ***And yes, the NCAA isn’t perfect but they absolutely do thwart a lot of cheating.

                                      ***And, this is just my opinion, but I strongly believe that the way these rulings have been set up will make the NCAA victorious in any lawsuits that may arise. NIL has legal meanings and it’s clear from the language of the new rules that they are working to ensure that the legal meaning of NIL is respected and the NIL as a pretext for inducement is rooted out.

                                      ***This distinction between what is bonafide NIL and inducement is something I’ve harped on for the past few months. The NCAA has now made an overt commentary about this very issue and in my reading of the new rulings that is the heart of the matter.

                                      ***They are putting in place rules to clearly distinguish between actual NIL – Mastercard or Pepsi assess the value of a player’s NIL, for example, and pay a reasonable/justifiable rate for the use of said player’s NIL – and inducement – I’m a Texas State booster who owns an oil company and I want 200K in the pockets of a high school kid so that he will go to Texas State.

                                      ***Over the past few months boosters have gotten intimately involved in the process. I can tell you that many of them are speaking directly to players at the behest of the coaches. Many of them are offering kids compensation whether they’re PSAs (prospective student-athletes) or transfers. As one person described it to me, “they’re playing fantasy football with the kids.”

                                      ***That will now be a clear violation. The traditional NCAA booster definition returns and boosters are not permitted to communicate with athletes regarding recruitment. Collectives will also be seen as boosters so they too will be subject to the same prohibitions.

                                      ***A particular interesting new rule that depending on how it’s interpreted is going to upend a lot of the deals that are being made or were made reads as follows.

                                      “An NIL agreement between a SA (student athlete) and a booster/NIL entity may not be guaranteed or promised contingent on initial or continuing enrollment at a particular institution.”

                                      Rules go on later to say…

                                      “Athletics participation for pay and payments based on performance or given on an incentive basis are prohibited.”

                                      ***So, as you can imagine, a number of the deals for the high school students were not only contingent on them attending a particular school, but were also broken up as payments over the course of years. Those are classic cases of inducement as the agreements are clearly based on the “initial or continuing enrollment at a particular institution.” Any deal like that is going to be prohibited so if boosters want to do it, it’ll have to go back under the table where as I’ve said, it’s a lot harder to find that many big time donors willing to do that. And they certainly aren’t going to do it for just anyone – which is what was beginning to happen.

                                      ***This looks like it’s not only going to nullify a number of individual agreements but depending on how it’s interpreted it could nullify position based agreements.

                                      ***Bottom line here is that if a PSA is going to get paid then that payment needs to be based on the actual value of the SA to whatever business they’re promoting and not based on where they go to school. As I’ve said before, if you’re a TAMU booster with a car dealership in Dallas, it shouldn’t matter if you have an NIL deal with the OU QB or the Texas QB, what should matter is their market value. Unless, of course, your real intent for paying the TAMU QB is to ensure he remains at TAMU. These rules are meant to end all of that.

                                      ***Within the new rules there appears to be a pretty broad catch-all clause that, in my opinion, looks like a smell test that NCAA is requiring institutions to use when evaluating the NIL deals.

                                      The relevant section says…

                                      “NIL agreements must be based on an independent, case-by-case analysis of the value that each athlete brings to a NIL agreement as opposed to providing compensation or incentives for enrollment decisions (e.g., signing a letter of intent or transferring), athletic performance (e.g., points scored, minutes played, winning a contest), achievement (e.g., starting position, award winner) or membership on a team.”

                                      It appears the NCAA is going to basically hold institutions accountable if they’re allowing NIL deals to go through that don’t appear bonafide and instead look like inducement. In other words, if a PSA is receiving a 200K NIL deal, that’s not going to pass a reasonableness test. If it looks like an inducement, it’s going to get blocked.

                                      ***I’ll also note that within the rules that were sent to compliance departments, the NCAA noted that the list of guidelines/rules was non-exhaustive. I emphasize that again, indicates that the real intent here whether a stipulation is delineated or not, is to root out inducement and booster involvement. This is only the beginning, in other words, of the regulations as the institutions and the NCAA work to get the NIL back to what it was intended to be and not a pretext to buy players.

                                      ***Also, I can tell you there is broad support for this. As far as I can tell, most of the coaches despise the current form of NIL and the institutions seem to feel the same way.

                                      ***Lastly, you may recall that I had noted a few months back that I’d heard the NCAA was especially upset with one or two institutions that they felt were really egregious in their manipulation of the NIL rules (neither school we cover was included). And I had heard there were people within the NCAA that wanted to leave the door open to retroactively go after those schools…

                                      ***It looks like that is indeed their now stated intent as the NCAA announced last night that they will have the authority to go after programs that committed egregious violations on a retroactive basis.
                                      Yep. It's pretty simple. You aren't allowed to lure kids to a particular university with promised N.I.L. deals. There's really no confusion at all.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Will A&M get spooked and not pay any of the 40 5* Dlinemen they signed this year?

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Orangejello Jones View Post
                                          Will A&M get spooked and not pay any of the 40 5* Dlinemen they signed this year?
                                          Doubtful. As the article read, there will always be a few cheaters. Thinking of you, Aggie and USuc.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by AdonijahAijalon View Post

                                            Yep. It's pretty simple. You aren't allowed to lure kids to a particular university with promised N.I.L. deals. There's really no confusion at all.
                                            Yes. I can see it now. Middle Tennessee gets the death penalty while USC keeps tampering with kids not in the portal.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              I don't understand how collectives can operate under these guidelines. Also, many of the supposed big deals we've heard about (although seen little proof of) seem to be inducements.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                I think schools should band together and tell the NCAA that they are on the clock. They have limited time to fix the mess they initially created by being so ambiguous and silent. They either need to swiftly end and punish schools that instituted pay-for-play schemes or they will all ignore the ruling. (Looking at BYU, Miami, A&M, etc.)

                                                The NCAA could start by informing those schools that their punishments will be curtailed if they end the schemes immediately. I was worried that these pay-for-play schemes would be somewhat obscured but schools made the enforcement easy on the NCAA as they went out and broadcast them to the world and made it clear that the deals were contingent on playing for their specific schools.

                                                If the NCAA doesn't take these steps the rest of college football will join in to the point where the NCAA either loses complete control of the situation or they cease to be the governing body.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  And while I am tepidly happy about this move, limited NIL to legit deals will create a situation where the schools in larger markets have a clear advantage.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    This is how you do an NIL deal. Dillon partnered with Nike and BSN sports to outfit his high school football team. Interesting that he didn't have to attend Hawaii University to get this done.



                                                    Last edited by AdonijahAijalon; 05-12-2022, 06:20 PM.

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      I don't see how this NCAA "clarification" is going to change anything.

                                                      Sure the booster can't spell it out in a written contract that the player only gets money if they attend a certain school, but the booster can still pay the players and as long as the booster doesn't open his mouth about being tied to a specific school, it will pass NCAA rules.

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by JCBoomer View Post
                                                        I don't understand how collectives can operate under these guidelines. Also, many of the supposed big deals we've heard about (although seen little proof of) seem to be inducements.
                                                        They pretty much can't. The NCAA pretty much stated in its press release that stuff prior to the date of release will be looked upon differently than stuff after, except for the most egregious pay for play inducements. This is, IMO, to allow for schools like OU and others later to the game to suspend some of the collective stuff, get clarification from the NCAA, and modify accordingly. The 50k per scholarship player may be poo-poo'ed under these rules. The NCAA needs to tread carefully here, though, because if OU or somebody says, "Look, we made this NIL collective because everybody else already had, and we need further clarification as to what's acceptable and what isn't," then the NCAA can't come back and say, "A ha! You admitted it! You're busted!" That would be the end of the NCAA, which many are already predicting anyway. But the fact is the schools do want the NCAA or some governing body to operate and create a set of rules and to govern/discipline accordingly. The current chaotic model cannot stand. The schools don't want it,and the coaches don't want it, and I suspect that the rank and file players who aren't getting huge NIL deals and just want a stable program don't want it either.

                                                        DG's NIL announcement, though, is precisely how it should be done. He uses his name, image, and likeness to engage in a deal that gets his high school some uniforms. Shit like that would've been illegal previously, and that seems silly to say the least.

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          So...let's say the NC2A burns the hair off USuC's/TexSly Likes Big Hairy CockGS nutsacks for their "egregious" NIL deals, does that mean that maybe some of that talent enters the portal or nullifies their NLI? Might be a few nuggets out their to pick up, unless their from USuC and were previous Sooners, let them play for Utah.

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by MichSooner View Post
                                                            ***Also, I can tell you there is broad support for this. As far as I can tell, most of the coaches despise the current form of NIL and the institutions seem to feel the same way.
                                                            Well, yeah… you’ve taken recruiting out of a coach’s hands and put it into the hands of desperate fanboy boosters.

                                                            Imagine telling Nick Saban that the secret to his “process” will soon be obsolete. “Process” meaning having the best roster top-to-bottom in the country for going on 15 years now.

                                                            USC seems to be flying under the radar with this while obviously bending and breaking rules left and right. People seem weirdly obsessed with Texas 8&4 versus a program that’s proven historically that they can actually win by cheating.

                                                            Comment


                                                              #31
                                                              Ehhh, I have nothing to add other than I like Morningwood and a “like” is warranted with a good thread.

                                                              On a more serious note, there is regulation coming. I do not and not many know what, but it’s coming.

                                                              Comment


                                                                #32



                                                                Nick sounds a bit pissed

                                                                Comment


                                                                  #33
                                                                  Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post


                                                                  Nick sounds a bit pissed
                                                                  Aggy will still find a way to go 8-4

                                                                  Comment


                                                                    #34
                                                                    I love this shit. You know, the SEC usually circles the wagons when it comes to NCAA stuff, but not in this case. Wouldn't be surprised if the conference turned on the Aggies.

                                                                    I also wouldn't be surprised if Saban retires after one or two more seasons due to the clusterfuck of NIL.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                      #35
                                                                      I guess Jimbo just called an impromptu presser after Saban's comments. This could be funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyheYr3rJdw

                                                                      Comment


                                                                        #36
                                                                        Jimbo just went off on Saban. LOL. Love it.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                          #37
                                                                          Jimbo really emphasizing that "no state laws were broken" and saying that Saban said something he didn't say, which was that kids violated the law.

                                                                          All that's quite different from pay to play.

                                                                          But I love that he said go look into Saban, see how he got to where he is.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
                                                                            I love this shit. You know, the SEC usually circles the wagons when it comes to NCAA stuff, but not in this case. Wouldn't be surprised if the conference turned on the Aggies.

                                                                            I also wouldn't be surprised if Saban retires after one or two more seasons due to the clusterfuck of NIL.
                                                                            OR stay longer because of this rising disdain for Jimbo and his accusations of Jimbo and NIL just to beat the fighting Jimbo’s as long and as much as he and Bama can.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                              #39
                                                                              Saban just turned in aTm for retroactive punishment.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                                #40
                                                                                The other hilarious thing was how Jimbo held up Bobby Bowden as his example. You just can't make this shit up.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                  #41
                                                                                  I'm shocked they're actually trying to do something. One of the two schools mentioned for the retroactive flogging is obviously A&M. And for those of you that think they won't do anything to A$M, you're kidding yourselves. A$M is not UT. UT is a sacred cow. A$M is not. They'll strap them in the electric chair if they get a chance. The other I'm guessing is probably USC (like Penn State, a fallen sacred cow), but it could literally be a dozen different schools. I even heard Nebraska boosters have been throwing around the cash. But I'll got with Muleshoe and USC. Muleshoe always goes balls deep in the latest fad. NIL is still just out of bottle, so I'm sure he's been working a threesome with it.

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                                                                  Collapse

                                                                                  Go To Top

                                                                                  Collapse

                                                                                  Working...
                                                                                  X
                                                                                  UA-124223861-1