Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
46 minutes ago, Hornmatic said:

That’s partly my point. But it would still have to pass the clearinghouse. 

I guess I’m failing to understand why anyone would opt out. They can get rev sharing as well as outside corporate NIL deals. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Etexhorn13 said:

I guess I’m failing to understand why anyone would opt out. They can get rev sharing as well as outside corporate NIL deals. 

Because the revenue sharing cap is less than where the big boy collectives have set the market.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Etexhorn13 said:

I guess I’m failing to understand why anyone would opt out. They can get rev sharing as well as outside corporate NIL deals. 

According to imamac they can’t so it’s a moot point. But my thought was if they opt out they wouldn’t go through the clearinghouse house and could continue to receive deals through boosters and collectives without the deloitte scrutiny. 
 

For rosters like Texas the $15 million in rev share and whatever we can drum up in corporate won’t be enough. 

Posted

So many of us old timers fear a return to the 1980’s, when SMU, OU and TAMU were setting the market, UH, TT and others were participating, the Texas coaches knew exactly what was needed and the word from the Tower to Bellmont was “thou shalt not”. 
 
I don’t think the UT administration will take the same attitude now. We have Eltife leading the regents, and we have a lot of supportive regents. I don’t think they will allow athletics to do anything to embarrass the university, but otherwise will be supportive of competing. 
 

Posted
On 6/10/2025 at 8:03 AM, Scholz said:

"It's believed"

"People are saying"

"I've heard talk"

"Experts Agree"

"Four out of Five Doctors Recommend"

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

"Experts Agree"

"Four out of Five Doctors Recommend"

"It has been reported that"

"Experiments show"

"Major indicators suggest"

Posted
13 hours ago, Hornmatic said:

According to imamac they can’t so it’s a moot point. But my thought was if they opt out they wouldn’t go through the clearinghouse house and could continue to receive deals through boosters and collectives without the deloitte scrutiny. 
 

For rosters like Texas the $15 million in rev share and whatever we can drum up in corporate won’t be enough. 

Why would you think any NIL deals would be exempt from the clearinghouse? 

 

 

Posted

Just spitballing here... but, what about a nice art gallery where players athletes can display paintings, statues, photos and other various artistic works? Well, and members of the public can purchase said art... What does the pursuit of Art have to do with some "clearinghouse"?

Posted
2 hours ago, statsman said:

So many of us old timers fear a return to the 1980’s, when SMU, OU and TAMU were setting the market, UH, TT and others were participating, the Texas coaches knew exactly what was needed and the word from the Tower to Bellmont was “thou shalt not”. 
 
I don’t think the UT administration will take the same attitude now. We have Eltife leading the regents, and we have a lot of supportive regents. I don’t think they will allow athletics to do anything to embarrass the university, but otherwise will be supportive of competing. 
 

1980s?  How about roughly 2007 - 2022?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, utee94 said:

Why would you think any NIL deals would be exempt from the clearinghouse? 

 

 

I probably read something that was wrong or I misinterpreted it but it said players could opt out of the settlement and therefore wouldn’t be bound by its terms. 
 

In that case they couldn’t receive rev share and the clearinghouse wouldn’t apply. But as has been pointed out here that appears to be totally erroneous. Erroneous! 

1 hour ago, Tex Long said:

Just spitballing here... but, what about a nice art gallery where players athletes can display paintings, statues, photos and other various artistic works? Well, and members of the public can purchase said art... What does the pursuit of Art have to do with some "clearinghouse"?

I like where your head is at. Are you pre-med? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hornmatic said:

I probably read something that was wrong or I misinterpreted it but it said players could opt out of the settlement and therefore wouldn’t be bound by its terms. 
 

In that case they couldn’t receive rev share and the clearinghouse wouldn’t apply. But as has been pointed out here that appears to be totally erroneous. Erroneous! 

I like where your head is at. Are you pre-med? 

The settlement is only for past players, as part of it they also have to change the rules so things like this don't happen again. The new rules are not opt in or out, they are the new rules. 

Universities can opt out of the settlement, but they basically get banned from NCAA by doing so. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Example

Someone dies at the HOA pool. HOA gets sued and loses. Damages are 10M and only 4M in the fund, assessment to cover the rest for 6M to all residents. You are part of it, if you opt out (sell your house) you are out of the neighborhood and don't get to use the pool or anything else anymore. 

https://www.collegeathletecompensation.com/

Read this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

If it makes it to discovery, there might be some popcorn-munching moments, but one struggles to see how UW really wins here. Waaah the bully convinced my girlfriend to dump me!

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, BornAndRaised said:

lol. This will be sure to catapult them back to the top. As if playing for Mike Norvell didn’t have them beating away blue chips with a cane to begin with…save some pussy for the rest of us, FSU.

such a classic insecure little man proviso that I’m shocked aTm didn’t do it first…except now that I type that I vaguely remember them trying to use similar language in early contracts and getting g laughed at by everyone..

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

lol. This will be sure to catapult them back to the top. As if playing for Mike Norvell didn’t have them beating away blue chips with a cane to begin with…save some pussy for the rest of us, FSU.

such a classic insecure little man proviso that I’m shocked aTm didn’t do it first…except now that I type that I vaguely remember them trying to use similar language in early contracts and getting g laughed at by everyone..

It does feel like they're operating in an alternate universe where professional sports contracts, unions, free agency, etc. hasn't existed for 50 years.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...