No. This collective is only for athletes at The University of Alabama; That's the way it's supposed to work. NIL is AFTER signing—not before or as a condition of signing. That's where it's illegal.
Huh? Say it ain’t so
- Thread starter EastTNHunter
- Start date
Alabama still beat TN with Shula and was still on probation under Shula.
The NCAA Committee on infractions.
WRONG
NiL CAN be signed prior to signing with a school
IF what you say is correct then alabama does not sign any player that has a prior NIL? So they don't sign any of the many high school players that has NILs and none of their transfers in can have a prior NIL before signing with your school?
It appears that in that collective signing their NIL is conditioned with them signing with you school.
bowhunterfanatic
Well-Known Member
Do you really think anyone believes that???
So you in fact don't hate Fulmer for turning you guys in?
buckaroo
Well-Known Member
You got bad memory, Vols beat you 7 yrs in a rowAlabama still beat TN with Shula and was still on probation under Shula.
Bamamonts
Well-Known Member
Not during the Shula era. Bama won in 02 to end the 7 year streak. Bama also won in 05 under Shula but that win was vacated. I was at that game the score was 6-3. It was a big day for the offense on both teams.
deerfanatic
Well-Known Member
You are correct that the NOA hasn't been presented so we don't know exact charges but almost every single talking head is saying what I told you in that the ncaa is trying to apply rules they made retroactively. You don't have to believe me. Watch just a couple short interviews with almost any nonpartisan sports figure talking about it. It's widely accepted this is what they are trying to do. You want to act like and celebrate UT has done something terrible is about to be severely punished but in reality as it pertains to nil and the NCAA's rules every school using a collective that talks to a recruit and talks money with them has done the same thing. Allegedly there are over 2 dozen schools on their investigation list. So basically all major football schools. The rules have been vague from the get go because the situation is rapidly changing and the NCAA has been trying to hit a moving target this whole time while avoiding legal problems. The biggest problem they have are their rules most likely violated the Sherman act. They know it too. Did you read their response yesterday? Basically is said we make rules the schools want and we enforce them and we investigate when other schools complain on you. All of that's true but then they said litigation will impede or prevent them from applying rules and punishment. That's them admitting they know in court they will be beaten and their authority stripped. I know you want to see UT go down. I get it but this is higher than a rivalry and team hatred. This is because players are now making big money and the NCAA isn't getting a share and they want a piece. Laugh if you want but bama has a nil and has used it pretty heavily in the portal. If someone doesn't beat the NCAA in court over this then you will be on the chopping block too. That's the reality of this situation. It's not even about school punishment and student athlete protection from being exploited. It's about money and the ncaa is the biggest hypocrite in the world claiming they are protecting all of that when they are the main and worst abusers
deerfanatic
Well-Known Member
Bama has violated the rules as they are now. Every school has. Just accept it and realize the enemy or my enemy is my friend in this case. Through gritted teeth I'd support bama if the roles were reversed. I never thought I'd ever support them for anything but if the spots were swapped I would on this one. Also rules were in place and the scotus allowing nil much to the chagrin of the NCAA invalidated almost every rule they had that existed pre nil. The NCAA has done their best to ignore this situation until the Supreme Court told them they were wrong and allowed it. Then the NCAA threw out some very vague rules and tries to apply it when they feel like it. That organization is corrupt and antiquated and needs to be dissolved and something better is gonna have to come in place. My guess is schools will have to recognize athletes as employees and collectively bargain with them after they unionize and then salary structures will be put in place.
deerfanatic
Well-Known Member
You and me and everyone else knows exactly what spyre is and what collectives are. You probably don't realize this but spyre is not UT's collective. Spyre was in endorsement and nil business many years before college nil. UT's collective is the volunteer club. Spyre lawyer Tom Mars who drafted nico's contract and has dealt with and beaten the NCAA many times in court is who headed the whole deal up. Yes we know it's a front for a UT booster group and they have only signed UT athletes but the same thing is true about every schools collective. It doesn't matter what people think and say. What matters is the contractual language and spyre was perfectly prepared for this and way ahead of the NCAA. The NCAA will lose this case.I said it is illegal to be paying him as an inducement to sign with UT. Spin it all you want. Defend the head of Spyre in that YouTube video I posted.
Their "contract" is a sham. If this kid signed with Ball State do you think his agreement with Spyre would still have been worth, what was it all y'all have been claiming since he signed, 7-8mil?
They have zero authority over Spyre.
Honestly don't care if they believe it or not.
Most attorneys bill by the hour. Bandwagon Nation attorneys work pro-bono spending hours on a Tennessee deer hunting forum writing opinions, sharing their legal expertise, and trying to convince Vol fans that the sky is falling. They are a generous bunch. All those years in law school, late nights studying for the bar, and years perfecting their craft in courtrooms just to give it away for free. We salute you Bandwagon Nation attorneys. Your generosity is unmatched.
deerfanatic
Well-Known Member
And to clarify a little father what the ncaa is investigating and possibly saying is a violation and what is known you start with the leak by the ncaa to the NYT. The NYT reported the investigation and said it was over a plane ride from the collective to Knoxville a month after Nico had signed his contact and became an employee of theirs. He did go on an unofficial visit to the school from that ride. The NCAA at the time has not deemed the collective a booster. That's where the school is saying you are trying to apply rules retroactively since they have since deemed them a booster. From a legal standpoint the NCAA doesn't seem to have any legs to stand on and on top of that their rules most likely violate the Sherman act and will be struck down.
No, I'm not wrong. Read the state laws. The way it's set up in Alabama is correct from the standpoint of what NIL is supposed to be. No high school athlete can sign an NIL. That's what we were talking about so how am I wrong?
They don't know. I was there in 05 too.
buckaroo
Well-Known Member
Stallings I guessThey don't know. I was there in 05 too.
buckaroo
Well-Known Member
No, they are floating that idea out there trying to gain public support to make the NCAA back off.
Do I care what talking heads say to gain your views so they get money from advertisers…absolutely not.
Where have I celebrated anything? If UT broke the rules, hammer em. If they didn't, good for them. The same goes for Alabama. There are rules in place for a reason—that's how our society functions. If neither or both schools got hammered for violations, I won't lose any sleep over it either way.
I'm not one championing to boot the NCAA from being the governing body over college football so this isn't a rahrah let's fight together issue for me. People think it's the Wild Wild West right now, without the NCAA what would it be like? The NCAA dragged their feet on NIL and it's turned into an effin circus where schools are actively buying players. Total joke and it's ruining college football.
Think there have been people on this forum that said it's stemming from the use of a boosters private jet to fly him on unofficial visits. There is no retroactive enforcement needed if that's what this is about—that rule has been on the books FOREVER.
Last edited:
