I am not a lawyer but it seems that collective bargaining is the answer. Can the players unionize without being employees? If the court allow that then I think its definitely a win-win. You can have a cap and limited free agency like the NFL. No one has challenged the 4 year NCAA rule YET. But I doubt anything the NCAA calls a rule survives if it interferes with an athletes ability to make money due to the Sherman ACT. The current scheme has not faces a real challenge. UT and a few schools are "following" the rules but it looks as if LSU , the Texas schools and Ole Miss are not. But it will come to a head for sure when Delloite defers to Bama and lets them pay a QB 4+ M and tells UT no. It will go to court and Delloite and the NCAA will lose. Probably 9-0 like last time. Rules should NEVER be up to third party interpretation. They need to be static, the same for all and completely objective. That being said I hope the cap is high enough that UT can be a top five blue chip school forever.
He for sure is butt hurt but he is mostly right with the more objective comments. The NCAA rightfully gets their teeth kicked in when this stuff goes to court. They want to put the NIL toothpaste back in the tube. They ain't going to be able to do that. Running to congress is NOT the answer. The course of action is to have the students at the table to agree on the rules. I would like to see 3 revenues streams. The schools, collectives and real NIL. Use a formula like Cap - rev share = maximum collective amount. NIL needs to be actual NIL money for tv, radio and or print ads from local companies. But they have to actually put out an ad. Let players sell stuff on ebay and charge a set fee for autographs. Set max payout pricing for those deals.
In case anyone is curious, here's the livestream to today's Aguilar hearing: Joey Aguilar eligibility hearing live: Tennessee Vols QB pushes for 7th NCAA season - YouTube
I think the judge said he'd be back with a ruling quickly, so we may hear today and probably this week?
I read that the injunction meant he would likely get it, but now Chris Lowe is predicting he won't get it. I don't really think Lowe's prediction is much better than anyone else's, but I wish he hadn't said it.
Lowe was saying the same stuff before the hearing. Nothing against Lowe, but I don't think anyone really knows how it's going to go.
Were I a betting man, I would wager on Aguilar. The NCAA is the definition of arbitrary and the judge himself pointed it out. The NCAA didnt have to essentially punt and rule Pavia eligible this past season straight out, but they did after he won an injunction. That in itself makes their opposition now weaker. I am not a lawyer, but I think many are reading the judge incorrectly when he was pushing on both sides of the case. That's him doing his job.
I'm 50/50 whether I think he does or not. This is quite different from the Chambliss case (which was just NCAA being morons), and I just don't know. Also not sure he put forward the best case. Seems like the judge was able to blow lots of holes in it.
If it wasn't home cooking AND the NCAA didn't completely drop the ball with his medical redshirt request I don't know if he gets it. But even just the last one, it seemed like a no brainer to me.
Well, devil's advocate take- he may have a lot more meaningful cases that are demanding his attention and decision-writing time. Ones involving crime, prison, death, etc.
One of the guys on Sports Talk yesterday said this judge doesn’t have an assistant or anyone helping him on his cases, so he has to handle all of the work (reading, writing, etc.) that goes into making a ruling and that’s the reason it’s taking a while. All of those guys have also slowly turned from “I’d be shocked if Aguilar is not the QB next year” to saying they don’t feel great about the case. It has the feel of a group that’s been told something by someone or it could be a group of people that don’t know anything making sure they can say “I was right” no matter the outcome. Hard to tell with that bunch.
Here’s a take. I’ve never trusted judges. Talk about a person with a power trip. And for latest example, the donor judge at Alabama who ruled on Bediako. Impartial and unbiased my ass. Plus, imo it’s not humanly possible to not have any biases or personal opinions during trials with witnesses and counselors, some may be pleasant and some get on your nerve just looking at them, like if Drinkwitz was an attorney, no way a judge doesn’t just end up annoyed and staring at his teeth. It’s impossible not to.
Check out this article from Knoxville News: Tennessee QB Joey Aguilar loses injunction in NCAA eligibility case https://www.knoxnews.com/story/spor...unction-ncaa-eligibility-lawsuit/88147059007/
