Football Early Signing Day 2023

[Herb]

Non-competes are BS and courts are starting to recognize that employers have no right to dictate where an ex-employee is allowed to work.  

People do not like NIL and the portal, but I think they are way overdue. You want an athlete or an employee to stay?  Make it worth their while to do so.  Otherwise, pound sand.

Why should athletes have less rights than any other student on a scholarship? If a student has an academic scholarship to LSU to study engineering then decide they want to go to MIT (who also offered that student a scholarship) there is no requirement that the student must sit out a year before transferring to MIT. They can transfer immediately and continue their scholastic career.

What needs to happen is that schools need to adjust to the new reality of NIL and the Transfer Portal.  What also needs to happen is that there needs to be effective policing and harsh repercussions for tampering. Universities need to be tied to their NIL benefactors (as they formerly were with 'boosters') and be required to exert some kind of control over them.

The problem right now is that we're still in the 'Wild West' days of the new reality. Universities currently are allowed to turn a blind eye and say "We can't control endorsement packages from outside businesses" when we all know that there is back channel communication and coordination between the schools and NIL donors during recruiting these days and players are most likely being induced to enter the portal and transfer in exchange for NIL deals.

The problem is that the courts have emasculated the NCAA from having any enforcement power. 

The only way this is going to get cured is at the federal legislative level. Right now, everything is on the state level which triggered a "race to the bottom" between states to have the most toothless and wide open laws as possible.

Maybe what needs to happen is that any company that wants to make NIL deals and any student (and their family) that receives them needs to agree to have their finances, phone records, and emails audited when they enter the system and anytime there is a subsequent transaction (and I'll include a transfer as a 'transaction').

 

[Nutriaitch]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:28 AM, Herb said:

Why should athletes have less rights than any other student on a scholarship? If a student has an academic scholarship to LSU to study engineering then decide they want to go to MIT (who also offered that student a scholarship) there is no requirement that the student must sit out a year before transferring to MIT. They can transfer immediately and continue their scholastic career.

the athlete can attend classes immediately as well.
which makes their rights exactly equal to each other.

[Nutriaitch]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:27 PM, houtiger said:

sort of.  The enforceable non competes, I was just reading, are limited in area to 50 miles and limited in time to 2 years max, whatever the employee is willing to sign.  But if you are going to sign one in business, they will have to basically pay your salary to keep you on the bench.  It's not cheap.

no shyte! 
how much did LSU have invested in the players that hit the portal this year?

 

On 1/14/2023 at 5:27 PM, houtiger said:

  Regular employees don't get employment contracts, your employment is "at will", at the will of the employer.  Not even garden variety VP's get an employment contract, usually it is limited to the top 40 or so employees, but it depends on the size of the company.

i've had 2 separate employment contracts in my career.
both with non compete clauses.

and i can promise you i've never been on the VP level at either company.

one was only for 6 months after I left (don't remember the territory because it was a long time ago now).

the other was for 2 years and included the gulf coast and up to 3 miles offshore.

[houtiger]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

i've had 2 separate employment contracts in my career.
both with non compete clauses.

and i can promise you i've never been on the VP level at either company.

one was only for 6 months after I left (don't remember the territory because it was a long time ago now).

the other was for 2 years and included the gulf coast and up to 3 miles offshore.

Congrats on being so important to your company!  Were you compensated for the no compete?  Was it clear?  If not, you may have been able to fight it in court.  Some folks ignored the no compete and would not be sued unless they took the old customer list and started calling all of them. 

[Nutriaitch]

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

Congrats on being so important to your company!

those of us who performed essential tasks had non competes. 

some of the office only staff that has inside info had NDAs. 

again, this was at 2 separate companies, and i know for a fact several others in the industry are structured basically the same way. 

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

  Were you compensated for the no compete?  Was it clear?

i knew going into the job the pay and the clause. 

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

 If not, you may have been able to fight it in court. 

that’s is a BIG part of what’s wrong with this country. 

It was AGREED UPON and a signed document. 

why should that ever end up in court?

i didn’t have to go work for that company (although really for what i was doing, it would have been a similar situation at any other company). I chose to work at that company knowing the condition of employment. 

 

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

Some folks ignored the no compete and would not be sued unless they took the old customer list and started calling all of them. 

 

i know of at least 2 people who were let out of their non-competes because while they were going to a company that technically fell under the non-compete:

1 was going to a division that was going to have minimal if any crossover between their company and ours. 

the other was going to a position where he could have bolstered the working relationship between the 2 companies in a way that would have been mutually beneficial to both companies. 

both went to upper management to discuss before taking the other jobs. sorta like the old transfer system where teams could have a “no go” list of potential new schools.

Im not aware of anyone trying to fight them through legal system. 

[houtiger]

2 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

that’s is a BIG part of what’s wrong with this country. 

It was AGREED UPON and a signed document. 

why should that ever end up in court?

i didn’t have to go work for that company (although really for what i was doing, it would have been a similar situation at any other company). I chose to work at that company knowing the condition of employment. 

It ends up in court when the companies lawyers write the non compete and they infringe unduly on ones right to earn a living.  They ask for too much.  It's all for the company and nothing for the employee.  Now in the case of my exec vp buddy, they had agree to pay him handsomely to sit on the bench for a year, and after being on call to quell a computer blowup anywhere in the world 24/7/365 for five years, he was glad for the year off.  He kept a packed suitcase in his trunk, his passport, and $200 in local currency of every country he had been to, in case he had to go back.

Although you signed the agreement, I think the court's view is the company had most of the power in the transaction, and they used it to extract something from you that they should not have (the right to work, where you would like to), except within specific parameters (area of coverage and time duration).  That is why most are found unenforceable.

[Nutriaitch]

12 minutes ago, houtiger said:

the right to work

correct, i do have the right to work

12 minutes ago, houtiger said:

where you would like to

that is not now, nor as it ever been a right.

[Nutriaitch]

14 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Although you signed the agreement, I think the court's view is the company had most of the power in the transaction, and they used it to extract something from you that they should not have (the right to work, where you would like to)

How did they have all the power?
I didn't even work for them yet.

 

14 minutes ago, houtiger said:

, except within specific parameters (area of coverage and time duration). 

That is why most are found unenforceable.

so like within a certain footprint for a couple years?

 

holy shyte! that's exactly how the old rule was.

[houtiger]

15 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

where you would like to

that is not now, nor as it ever been a right.

Of course it is a right.  That is why many non competes are found unenforceable.  They ask for too much, and perhaps offer too little in compensation for the non compete.

From Texas law:

• is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement

• contains reasonable limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity

• most courts have ruled that the public policy is to promote competition, not limit it, and that before an agreement limiting competition will be enforced, the employer must show how non-enforcement would harm it and that enforcement would not place an unreasonable burden on a person's right to practice a profession or trade or otherwise make a living.

Edited January 16, 2023 by houtiger

[Nutriaitch]

18 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Of course it is a right. 

no, it’s not.

never has been.

never will be.

i have a right to be employed.
who employs me is not now,  nor has it ever been guaranteed to ME.

 

 

[houtiger]

2 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

no, it’s not.

never has been.

never will be.

i have a right to be employed.
who employs me is not now,  nor has it ever been guaranteed to ME.

That is not the issue.  The issue is if you get a job offer from company A, you generally have the right to accept the offer and enter their employment, regardless of where they are located.  You may not be able to call on your former customers for a period of time, but you can accept a job anywhere.

 

28 minutes ago, houtiger said:

and that before an agreement limiting competition will be enforced, the employer must show how non-enforcement would harm it and that enforcement would not place an unreasonable burden on a person's right to practice a profession or trade or otherwise make a living.

And we see in Texas, the burden of proof is on the employer attempting to enforce a non-compete.  That is probably why you see so few of these cases pursued.  The court will generally side with promoting competition and upholding individuals rights to make a living.

[houtiger]

I said it up above, it may be easier to go after "no second job" if all the NIL money went to the universities and they paid the players a scheduled wage, like the NFL has league minimums per a schedule of how long you've been in the league.  That would probably require a "super conference" where the schools think they can raise the max NIL pool money, in order to make a level playing field.

You have to get a salary cap somehow to level the playing field.

Edited January 16, 2023 by houtiger

[Nutriaitch]

4 hours ago, houtiger said:

That is not the issue.  The issue is if you get a job offer from company A, you generally have the right to accept the offer and enter their employment, regardless of where they are located.  You may not be able to call on your former customers for a period of time, but you can accept a job anywhere.

 

And we see in Texas, the burden of proof is on the employer attempting to enforce a non-compete.  That is probably why you see so few of these cases pursued.  The court will generally side with promoting competition and upholding individuals rights to make a living.

if i was a judge (which obviously i’m not), the companies would win 99% + of these cases. 

just like the NCAA should have won the NIL cases as well. 

 

literally every single one of these “contracts” are entered into voluntarily. 

you can’t enter voluntarily then after the fact say “wait, this didn’t end up like i hoped” and change your mind. 

NCAA membership is voluntary. 
there is no law/rule/ anything that says any of these schools have to belong to the NCAA. 

there is no law saying a kid has to play college sports. 

all of it is voluntary. 
every single aspect.

so no, i don’t feel sorry for the members. 
and no, they should not have won their court battles either. 

the schools CHOSE to join and stay in the NCAA. 

the athletes CHOSE to sign “contracts” (LOI) with the schools. 

 

don’t come to me after and say “nevermind, i didn’t mean it” and expect me to feel sorry for you. 

 

here is the part where you tell me coach can leave. 
and you are correct. 
except that coach is responsible for whatever the AGREED UPON separation terms are. 

if those terms are $100 million, then coach owes $100 million. 
mid those terms are a half eaten McDonald’s cheeseburger, then that’s what he owes. 
if terms of his contract prevent him from leaving for a conference rival, the. he can’t leave for a conference rival. 

an adult human being signed a piece of paper saying he agreed to those terms. 

just like i signed one agreeing to pay X amount per month for my truck. 
i don’t get to just say “i was just fornicating with you” and then not pay and still keep the truck. 
 

[Nutriaitch]

note:

here is where you say “but one side has all the leverage”

as if that’s different than pretty much any other negotiation that has ever existed in the history of this planet 

[Nutriaitch]

Just now, Nutriaitch said:

note:

here is where you say “but one side has all the leverage”

as if that’s different than pretty much any other negotiation that has ever existed in the history of this planet 

so when i bought my truck, by previous vehicle was in shop and basically screwed. 

i had a choice. 
buy a new vehicle from that dealership, or leave without a ride and buy one else where. 

 

they had all of the leverage. 

i agreed to the terms we negotiated on a new (ok, used) truck. 

 

but according to you, that shouldn’t be binding. 
i should be able to just bail with no penalty because one side had all the power. so that contract should be null and void and i can just enter into another one somewhere with no penalty. 

 

but that’s not how life works. 
a i signed saying i agreed to X. 

if i do not fulfill my end of the agreement, there is a penalty to pay. 
one i know about up front and have agreed i will abide by if i don’t hold up my end of the contract. 

[dachsie]

I think you two like to argue for the sake of arguing....

[Herb]

3 hours ago, dachsie said:

I think you two like to argue for the sake of arguing....

At this point Nootch is arguing with himself! 

[Nutriaitch]

8 minutes ago, Herb said:

At this point Nootch is arguing with himself! 

i wanted to even up the odds a little 

[houtiger]

23 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

if i was a judge (which obviously i’m not), the companies would win 99% + of these cases. 

just like the NCAA should have won the NIL cases as well. 

The way that you wish the law was, does not make the law that way.

[Nutriaitch]

10 hours ago, houtiger said:

The way that you wish the law was, does not make the law that way.

the law says if two sides voluntarily come to an agreement and  sign a piece of paper stating such, then that agreement is binding.

except, apparently, for the poor widdle afletes in college.

 

the law also says that a club  with private membership can make its own rules and bylaws for membership.

unless that club is the NCAA.

[houtiger]

13 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

the law says if two sides voluntarily come to an agreement and  sign a piece of paper stating such, then that agreement is binding.

This is such a broad statement and over simplification that it is mostly false.

There is an assumption that the agreement does not obviate basic tenants of business.

Anti trust laws were written so the business barons on the early 20th century could not unfairly put their competitors out of business.  Monopolies are illegal.  Two companied agreeing to divide sales territory and not sell into the other's terrritory is illegal.  It's illegal because if two companies agree to not compete, the people living in those locations will be subject to higher prices if there is not competition.  Any such agreement would be deemed illegal, and the companies subject to fines.

The agreement cannot violate tenants at a higher level.

Here's one from one of my former employers:

Quote

28 July 2000

OFFSHORE construction giants J Ray McDermott, HeereMac (a joint venture of J Ray and Dutch company Heerema Marine Contractors), and Italy's Saipem are alleged to have acted in concert to suppress and eliminate price competition for heavy-lift installation services... in a far-reaching conspiracy to rig bids and allocate projects among themselves. Depending on who you talk to among the scores of attorneys and corporate communicators involved, and based on the court filing du jour, the fancy financial footwork may involve anywhere from three to 52 to hundreds of offshore transportation/ construction projects as well as pipe laying and other offshore work from the Gulf of Mexico to the farthest corner of the globe.

 

You can''t do that.  They had an agreement, but it was illegal.  I don't know the end of that case, but if the allegation was true, they would have been fined.

In any business agreement, you can't violate higher level standards of behavior.  If you do, that agreement might we set aside.

With non competes, the courts do not want to hinder competion, and they do not want to unduly infringe on a persons right to earn a living. 

 

[Nutriaitch]

9 hours ago, houtiger said:

This is such a broad statement and over simplification that it is mostly false.

There is an assumption that the agreement does not obviate basic tenants of business.

Anti trust laws were written so the business barons on the early 20th century could not unfairly put their competitors out of business.  Monopolies are illegal.  Two companied agreeing to divide sales territory and not sell into the other's terrritory is illegal.  It's illegal because if two companies agree to not compete, the people living in those locations will be subject to higher prices if there is not competition.  Any such agreement would be deemed illegal, and the companies subject to fines.

The agreement cannot violate tenants at a higher level.

Here's one from one of my former employers:

You can''t do that.  They had an agreement, but it was illegal.  I don't know the end of that case, but if the allegation was true, they would have been fined.

In any business agreement, you can't violate higher level standards of behavior.  If you do, that agreement might we set aside.

With non competes, the courts do not want to hinder competion, and they do not want to unduly infringe on a persons right to earn a living. 

 

 

when multiple companies come together to price fix or anything like that, it's called collusion.
there are actual laws against that.

so is having a monopoly.

also illegal.

agreeing to terms of employment is not only not illegal, it is done by literally every person for every job.
if you do not like those terms, you can go work for someone else rather than take that job.

non-competes do not hinder competition. and only a very twisted convoluted view of things would think that it does.
the company i worked for, and their biggest competitor both have non competes for essential personnel.

and i can promise you that competition is still extremely fierce. Both companies constantly trying to figure out to beat the other.
and the customers benefit from that competition.

because both companies are in a constant race to provide better (or more) services at better rates than the competition.

Company X not being able to hire Nutriaitch for the next 24 months doesn't chance that in any way.

 

to bring this back to football, prior to a couple years ago, that's how the transfer rule had been for a century.
Judging by the fact that FBS blossomed into 130 schools during that timeframe with all of them building bigger and bigger stadiums, and TV contracts blasting through the stratosphere, I'd say the competition never waivered even slightly.
And again, the customer benefitted. My proof is that demand continued to rise (which is why prices went up).

in fact, know when the customer started complaining?
when they changed the rule.

 

[houtiger]

13 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

to bring this back to football, prior to a couple years ago, that's how the transfer rule had been for a century.
Judging by the fact that FBS blossomed into 130 schools during that timeframe with all of them building bigger and bigger stadiums, and TV contracts blasting through the stratosphere, I'd say the competition never waivered even slightly.
And again, the customer benefitted. My proof is that demand continued to rise (which is why prices went up).

There is NO indication that the popularity of college football is attributable to the transfer rule forcing a kid to sit out a year before competing for a new school.

TV in the 1950's did a great deal to popularize college ball, population growth, rising wages and rising standard of living post WW II, heck, interstate highways that made it easy for people to drive to the games all contributed to building bigger stadiums and more revenue for the athletic dept. 

The reason that some are concerned about the new transfer rule is that is raises uncertainty about the quality of team that anyone's favorite university can put on the field.  You recruit a kid (say, Walker Howard), you think he's a future savior, and in a year he's gone.  Like the LB Tolan. 

But, when you look at the quality of the games being played, college football did very well the last few years.  TV ratings remain strong.  As long as everyone is subject to the same level of risk, the playing field remains even.

Now NIL, that's a problem because there is no level playing field.  Some schools will suffer if their boosters are not as wealthy as other schools.  If the rich schools can buy better players consistently and the same 4 teams duke it out for the natty every year, people might lose interest and ratings may fall.