Maroon Flash said:
Hope Coaches completely disregard which players they may piss off when they NIL "hire" guys to come in to compete.
Team loyalty to players needs to be zero because team isn't getting any loyalty in return, current case in point is Noah Thomas in the portal.
And if a player isn't earning his NIL, Elko should call them into office to tell them to hit the portal.
If we continue to be "nice" we will continue to be mediocre at best.
So…which NIL does Elko control? Does he violate clear rules, Texas law and broad contract law based on state and federal statutory code reinforcing common law? Do you recommend we move immediately to ginokete contract anarchy? Stop paying Jimbo-level anarchy?
That's just idiotic. But let's refresh:
1. Name, Image, and Likeness belongs to the athlete not the school.
2. True sponsorship contracts benefit the business that writes the agreement with the student athlete using arms-length negotiation presumably in good will with representation by the athlete if he or she chooses to involve representation. The school has zero right to participate other than to review at time of disclosure that is required by Texas statutory code.
3. A collective organizes funding and might actually execute contract with student athletes and typically is more closely aligned with a school, but those contracts are still contracts and likely terminate when the student chooses to leave but state law disallows performance in the field as a direct contract performance measure. And coercion usually is viewed poorly by courts when a contract is breached.
4. The new payments by schools as NIL are definitely a new beast but they are specifically to allow the school to compensate student athletes for use of the student athletes intellectual property which includes name, image, and likeness. The $20+ million annually is a continuation of the $2+ billion being recommended as part of a SETTLEMENT to continuing aggravated infraction of federal anti-trust law which the cases that are being grouped together for settlement prove the NCAA did just in the tune since 2016. But plaintiff counsel goal is to take down roughly 50% of revenue similar to the top-level pro leagues for any money sports meaning football and men's basketball today.
So OP recommends further aggravating all areas of agreements that would further violate NCAA rules, a hard-fight settlement that isn't in place yet, state law written to benefit Texas A&M specifically, and federal anti-trust law?
Are you really that dumb or just trolling???
