Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

You understand we're competing with 150+ schools for this kid right? Are they ready and willing to sign the Txhuntr nil contract or the LSU nil contract that allows them to rape and pillage at will?

Revenue share the bowl money.

Txhuntr said:

---

Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

Good job rook. Get back to us when you understand how NIL works.

Txhuntr said:

---

Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

Kid would just go elsewhere to a school willing to pay him up front.

Txhuntr said:

---

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes?

---

Because the school doesn't pay the kids.

Private citizens/business can spend their money however they wish.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Txhuntr said:

---

Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

You call yourself a TX Hunter and haven't heard "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?

4 said:

---

Because the school doesn't pay the kids.

Private citizens/business can spend their money however they wish.

---

Yes they can, which is why it's surprising these wealthy business magnates aren't doing anything more than making these kids put their name on a LOI for these bucks. You would think they would make them sign contracts where they get paid at certain intervals of the year, and must be on the roster to get paid. You could have some clauses that impose penalties for leaving the program. Let's all be real, no the universities aren't directly paying the players, but they are putting the players and collectives together to hash out deals.

Sorry, but we're stuck with this abysmal, stupid system. Get used to it or quit following it, like I have.

Allow the schools to issue a percentage of the money generated from the bowl game to each player that participated in the game.

Make the play offs. It's that simple.

Who cares if a few players that are going pro and not in the playoffs opt out. I don't.

Players get an NIL deal from the sponsors of the game for playing it. It should be this simple right?

Apparently you got lost and accidentally stumbled into something you don't follow

andrews372 said:

---

Allow the schools to issue a percentage of the money generated from the bowl game to each player that participated in the game.

---

Give them more money! Always the answer!

They want to be treated like pros, then let's do it. Make it so they can be cut at any time. If they're cut, they're not only off the team, but their scholarship for the school ends that day. If they want to finish out the semester, make them pay the prorated amount.

Little Rock Ag said:

---

Sorry, but we're stuck with this abysmal, stupid system. Get used to it or quit following it, like I have.

---

Seems like you're following it.

Its all mostly just idiotic group think where people blindly think they're following the "smart" decision. Theres like a tiny handful of players a year who have any real risk to the point where the amount of money they stand to lose is great enough to worry about.

Then there's like hordes of dudes who "know" that they are great players too and think they need to sit out also or whatever just because of common knowledge but really all they are doing is skipping one of the very few football games they have left in their lifetime to sit on their ass and watch.

BkYdPitmaster said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

Sorry, but we're stuck with this abysmal, stupid system. Get used to it or quit following it, like I have.

---

Seems like you're following it.

---

I can't speak for him, but I still like getting on this board a few times a week. However, I watch a fraction of the amount of A&M football as I've done in the past. I think I watched only two games from start to finish this year. But if they get good again, I'll probably get sucked back in.

Quote:

---

Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

They haven't tried it because it would violate state law

Txhuntr said:

---

Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

No, we cannot without essentially a collective bargaining agreement that due to the staying time of athletes probably has to be renegotiated annually. This problem is due to the NCAA carefully refusing revenue to the student athletes using their shamateurism framework which infantilizes athletes in every aspect of their relationship with the university and additionally made the schools effectively guardians of nearly adult children.

Start relinquishing that mentality completely. The athletes DO NOT BELONG TO YOUR OR TO YOUR SCHOOL. Once you two get over yourselves you will live a much healthier life.

Troglodyte said:

---

Revenue share the bowl money.

---

Boom. Share bowl money with the athletes

I' think the only way to solve opt outs at this point is to expand the playoffs to 24 or more games. This would also eliminate 12 pointless bowl games.

You can't prevent it. It is what it is and there is no going back. Just accept it as additional practices and live reps for the younger guys to get experience where the result means absolutely nothing.

I would almost prefer the guys that 100% won't be here next year don't play in the bowls so the younger guys can get the experience (playoffs being the only exception).

Last night they said Missouri didn't have anyone opt out. How'd they manage that?

Txhuntr said:

---

Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

The issue is that NIL is NOT paying the players to play for the team. The payments are NOT by the university and are NOT to play football. The NIL payments are so private entities can use the player's name, image, and likeness. Paying players to sign with or play violates NCAA rules.

Now in reality, we all know this is a joke. Teams/fanbases are cheating and the majority of NIL is pay-for-play. The NCAA will not or cannot enforce the rules. Today's NIL is not what it was supposed to be, but it absolutely is what anyone with half a brain knew it would turn into. NIL has made it extremely easy to cheat.

Even though we all know that NIL is being used as pay-for-play, your plan won't work because no one is going to put together a contract that blatantly spells out NIL as being used in a way that violates the rules. Pay-for-play NIL is veiled in a way that could legally be defended as the use of the player's name, image, and likeness even though only the most ignorant person could believe it really is.

From the beginning I've said the folks paying should have to put the money in a trust. The players get a percentage up front and a percentage monthly. The longer they stay, the more of it they get in the end. If they transfer out, they leave it on the table. I'm all for the players getting paid, but not for the extortion and shake downs going on now. In my opinion the transfer portal is way worse than the NIL. Coaches having to recruit their own players now too. It's just stupid.

agdaddy04 said:

---

Last night they said Missouri didn't have anyone opt out. How'd they manage that?

---

It's a blue collar mind set of the players….work hard for the whole season and the bowl game is an end of season "reward"

Bring n WOOD said:

---

agdaddy04 said:

---

Last night they said Missouri didn't have anyone opt out. How'd they manage that?

---

It's a blue collar mind set of the players….work hard for the whole season and the bowl game is an end of season "reward"

---

Probably also fewer guys transferring out or guys that are both eligible and good enough to enter the draft. Those are the only guys that skip bowl games and I don't have a problem with that.

You don't. Just let it go. The old college football days are over.

Just accept it and see if you can come to terms with it and find something about it you still enjoy.

(And really, why are so many grown adults so concerned about a kid having options. All these "fixes" are all limiting a kids ability to play and do the best for them… there is too much money in this for anything other than Everyman for himself…. This is just where we are).

Soon as you "make" them play a bowl game, they'll come in with their little "doctor's note" why they can't.

However, I suppose you could structure a deal where they get X amount per game and Y amount for a bowl games, EXCEPT you can't pay them for playing, right? just their NIL.

So I guess the contract says we want to see the name on the back of your jersey and your smiling ass on the football field during live bowl action. whole thing is ridiculous.

24601 said:

---

Txhuntr said:

---

Was having a discussion with a friend about how each of us had watched fewer bowl games this year than any other year due to most if not all teams dealing with a rash of opt outs and transfers.

We both came to the same conclusion, how in the age of NIL, can we not exercise more control over the athletes? If they have a $100,000 nil deal, they get 10% up front, and the rest once they're still on roster January 1st. How about a 2-3 year nil contract? If these kids want to act like pros, let's treat them that way, and hold them to binding contracts for their services. Really surprised some of these large collectives haven't tried this approach.

---

Kid would just go elsewhere to a school willing to pay him up front.

---

Yep

Which is why this thing is headed to schools paying players as employees, players union and collective bargaining agreement like the nfl has

4 said:

---

Because the school doesn't pay the kids.

Private citizens/business can spend their money however they wish.

---

well, sure, it was ever thus.
this is why Kyler's dad was driving a fancy 240Z when he was our QB back in the 80's.