This portal garbage needs to be eliminated

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2014
14,630
12,560
113
I think one eminently reasonable change is that a player cannot transfer to a school their current program is scheduled to play the following season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I4CtheFuture

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Sep 24, 2019
664
528
93
I think one eminently reasonable change is that a player cannot transfer to a school their current program is scheduled to play the following season.
I am pretty sure that was one of the restrictions the courts said was not allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: will110

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Sep 24, 2019
664
528
93
Which means there will have to be a players union which means players will be employees which means I won't care at all about watching a bunch of 18-22 year olds at their jobs.
Then dont watch. I am sure they will survive just fine. It is going to happen. It is the only way to reel in the NIL/Player Payment and Transfer Portal. Without one, it will never happen. And when it does happen, the stands will still be full and the TV viewership will still be high. Those who stop watching will be far and few between.
 

Piscis

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2001
852
739
93
Then dont watch. I am sure they will survive just fine. It is going to happen. It is the only way to reel in the NIL/Player Payment and Transfer Portal. Without one, it will never happen. And when it does happen, the stands will still be full and the TV viewership will still be high. Those who stop watching will be far and few between.
We'll see. Do fans continue to donate money to pro athletes like they do to college athletes? If players are employees, do they have to be students? No other employees at the university or the athletic associations are required to be students, That seems like a slam dunk lawsuit to me. Do fans continue to pour money into NIL collectives when the players are getting paychecks from the football program for playing and sharing in the revenue? What happens when a player holds out for more money or to be released because he wants to go to another team?

At some point, you won't be watching a team from the University of South Carolina, you will be watching a private business producing football games with naming rights from the University of South Carolina. They will have to be completely separate from the actual school to avoid lawsuits from all the other athletes in all other sports and the school will not be able to require students to pay anything in their athletic fees that goes to the private entity that runs the football program.

Yeah, if it comes to that, I think I'll find something else to watch.
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Sep 24, 2019
664
528
93
We'll see. Do fans continue to donate money to pro athletes like they do to college athletes? If players are employees, do they have to be students? No other employees at the university or the athletic associations are required to be students, That seems like a slam dunk lawsuit to me. Do fans continue to pour money into NIL collectives when the players are getting paychecks from the football program for playing and sharing in the revenue? What happens when a player holds out for more money or to be released because he wants to go to another team?

At some point, you won't be watching a team from the University of South Carolina, you will be watching a private business producing football games with naming rights from the University of South Carolina. They will have to be completely separate from the actual school to avoid lawsuits from all the other athletes in all other sports and the school will not be able to require students to pay anything in their athletic fees that goes to the private entity that runs the football program.

Yeah, if it comes to that, I think I'll find something else to watch.
You seriously do not realize that almost every college has student-only jobs?

And I stand by what I say. For the most part, fans will still donate, fans will still buy tickets, and fans will still watch on TV. Sure there will be some defectors but it will be minimal with virtually no impact at all.
 

I4CtheFuture

Well-known member
Oct 5, 2024
690
655
93
I am pretty sure that was one of the restrictions the courts said was not allowed.
Sorta gotta a question for you - Re; employees....

If company A spends time, money, and resources to "recruit" a potential employee, and that potential employee then agrees to be employed by company A - Doesn't company A have every right in the world to request those employees to sign a non-compete agreement so that those employees don't learn a years worth of company A's practices and then run off to work for company B....spilling all the secrets..... ????

I'm not really being argumentative here, I think it's a valid question at least..... I know good and well it's "Legal" for companies to do this......

So my thing is, for the courts to say "it's ok for certain employees, but not ok for other employees (IE: university sports teams with rivals) , that seems to me to be blatantly unconstitutional ......unequal protection ....

I'm pretty positive it boils down to legal words like "employees" vs "union members" or whatever but at the end of the day, it's rationalizations to make something not Ok, to be Ok..... Can't transfer to a team your playing next season seems perfectly reasonable - just like non-compete clauses. IDK, I'm just a football fan. What say you?
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Sep 24, 2019
664
528
93
Sorta gotta a question for you - Re; employees....

If company A spends time, money, and resources to "recruit" a potential employee, and that potential employee then agrees to be employed by company A - Doesn't company A have every right in the world to request those employees to sign a non-compete agreement so that those employees don't learn a years worth of company A's practices and then run off to work for company B....spilling all the secrets..... ????

I'm not really being argumentative here, I think it's a valid question at least..... I know good and well it's "Legal" for companies to do this......

So my thing is, for the courts to say "it's ok for certain employees, but not ok for other employees (IE: university sports teams with rivals) , that seems to me to be blatantly unconstitutional ......unequal protection ....

I'm pretty positive it boils down to legal words like "employees" vs "union members" or whatever but at the end of the day, it's rationalizations to make something not Ok, to be Ok..... Can't transfer to a team your playing next season seems perfectly reasonable - just like non-compete clauses. IDK, I'm just a football fan. What say you?
Depends I would think on what the state laws are. Right-to-work states might have obstacles with it. I really do not know the legalities of that. But I also seriously doubt it would happen. IMO, the only thing that is going to get a handle on all this stuff is a CBA that all parties involved come to an agreement on. Then whoever the governing body is if not the NCAA could have real consequences built into it like in the NFL and other leagues. They will hammer teams for tampering. No reason with a CBA they could not be the same in college. Have requirements to play post-season games. I just do not see any way to accomplish any of that without a CBA. Not with how the courts have ruled.
 

Sparklecity

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2021
902
741
93
We need to look out for ourselves. Have contracts that if they want to leave they have to buy out their contact
 

Hoganman1

Member
Nov 28, 2022
181
183
43
I’m really old but I cannot believe we are talking about this now. As much as I love college football it’s changing way too fast.
Unfortunately just like with professional golf, the love of money has ruined something I really enjoyed. I’m afraid it’s too late to do anything about it. Of course I will continue to watch and pull for the Gamecocks. However, my excitement will be tempered just like it has been for the Carolina Panthers. It’s a shame but as a former Panther coach once said “ it is what it is “.
 

1vagamecock

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
1,332
947
113
I can't forsee myself ever joining the Gamecock Club again and there is 0% chance I'll ever give to NIL.
Ill still watch and maybe even go to a game but it will never be like it was.
 

3USC1801

Joined Dec 10, 2020
Dec 10, 2020
912
3,141
93
You seriously do not realize that almost every college has student-only jobs?

And I stand by what I say. For the most part, fans will still donate, fans will still buy tickets, and fans will still watch on TV. Sure there will be some defectors but it will be minimal with virtually no impact at all.
Yes, there are “student only jobs” but there are federal guidelines for student workers at universities, private included, in order to receive funding. For instance, a student worker can only work a limited number of hours a week.
 

Cocky704

Member
Oct 24, 2015
42
49
18
Sorta gotta a question for you - Re; employees....

If company A spends time, money, and resources to "recruit" a potential employee, and that potential employee then agrees to be employed by company A - Doesn't company A have every right in the world to request those employees to sign a non-compete agreement so that those employees don't learn a years worth of company A's practices and then run off to work for company B....spilling all the secrets..... ????

I'm not really being argumentative here, I think it's a valid question at least..... I know good and well it's "Legal" for companies to do this......

So my thing is, for the courts to say "it's ok for certain employees, but not ok for other employees (IE: university sports teams with rivals) , that seems to me to be blatantly unconstitutional ......unequal protection ....

I'm pretty positive it boils down to legal words like "employees" vs "union members" or whatever but at the end of the day, it's rationalizations to make something not Ok, to be Ok..... Can't transfer to a team your playing next season seems perfectly reasonable - just like non-compete clauses. IDK, I'm just a football fan. What say you?
Juice Wells and Lane Kiffin strongly disagree. Lol
 

Yard_Pimps

Well-known member
Aug 1, 2015
1,096
605
113
Which means there will have to be a players union which means players will be employees which means I won't care at all about watching a bunch of 18-22 year olds at their jobs.
Players become employees next June.
 

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2014
14,630
12,560
113
Within 10 years, college football players will not even be enrolled as students. Likely much sooner than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Piscis

Yard_Pimps

Well-known member
Aug 1, 2015
1,096
605
113
Sorta gotta a question for you - Re; employees....

If company A spends time, money, and resources to "recruit" a potential employee, and that potential employee then agrees to be employed by company A - Doesn't company A have every right in the world to request those employees to sign a non-compete agreement so that those employees don't learn a years worth of company A's practices and then run off to work for company B....spilling all the secrets..... ????

I'm not really being argumentative here, I think it's a valid question at least..... I know good and well it's "Legal" for companies to do this......

So my thing is, for the courts to say "it's ok for certain employees, but not ok for other employees (IE: university sports teams with rivals) , that seems to me to be blatantly unconstitutional ......unequal protection ....

I'm pretty positive it boils down to legal words like "employees" vs "union members" or whatever but at the end of the day, it's rationalizations to make something not Ok, to be Ok..... Can't transfer to a team your playing next season seems perfectly reasonable - just like non-compete clauses. IDK, I'm just a football fan. What say you?
Do not competes were banned in April by the FTC were they not?
 

Piscis

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2001
852
739
93
You seriously do not realize that almost every college has student-only jobs?

And I stand by what I say. For the most part, fans will still donate, fans will still buy tickets, and fans will still watch on TV. Sure there will be some defectors but it will be minimal with virtually no impact at all.
I don't know if a college can legally make a job "student-only" unless being a student is a BFOQ of the job. Otherwise, they could run afoul of the law if someone sued because they were denied the job based on not being a student. If the school has a job in the dining hall, how can they require an employee to be a student? Serving food or working in a kitchen does not require any skill or knowledge that only a college student possesses.

More importantly, football players will not be employees of the school, they will be employees of the various athletic associations which are totally separate entities of the school. How will a private business make being a college student a BFOQ of the job of playing football? Additionally, if being a student isn't a requirement, how will years of eligibility restrictions be enforced?

College football is going to go away as we have known it if players become employees and unionize. It will become another pro sports league and nothing more. There will be no actual connection to the school other than naming rights of the team and the stadium and practice facilities the pro team will have to lease from the school to play their games in.