Backups

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

BobcatBuiltTexan
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:25 am

Re: Backups

Post by BobcatBuiltTexan » Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:29 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 4:51 pm
Hi @BobcatBuiltTexan . I found this article regarding what the head coach said About an offer from the OC. Based on the article, the father of Sluka alleges what the coach said. Is there something where the coach said this publicly?

https://nypost.com/2024/09/26/sports/mo ... king-exit/

Not trying to argue. Just think we don’t really know what happened and the lack of anything written is fishy. And the intro of the agent after a couple of wins is really strange.
I did a lot of searching but as I suspected the hc isn't going to hold a press conf and say that or report that to a newspaper/media outlet. There are multiple articles that do say that the HC knows that the oc offered the money(after the fact) but because it didn't come from him it doesn't count.

Now this part is all assumption on my part........1. the oc is his boy he isn't about to out him, if he does he'll probably have to fire him and they are 3-0...he doesn't want that 2. if he outs him publicly then he is on the hook because he is supposed to know about everything that runs through his program, the good the bad the ugly...that's part of his job. by publicly admitting that he would essentially put himself on the chopping block, he isn't doing that. Now it says that his agent tried to get him 150k but they settled on 100k. now i believe unlv wasn't/hadn't paid the 100k and the agent tried to now get the 150k...that's where I think the middle line is.....the athlete and his family are wrong for trying to get more and the school is wrong for not paying what they initially said....again this is speculation and thinking the kid is completely innocent in this...there is middle ground imo.

As stated I think there is some lying by both....my most basic point is that money was offered in some capacity and wasn't paid, that isn't the kids fault..it WAS his mistake but not his fault.



Cataholic
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Backups

Post by Cataholic » Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:03 pm

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:29 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 4:51 pm
Hi @BobcatBuiltTexan . I found this article regarding what the head coach said About an offer from the OC. Based on the article, the father of Sluka alleges what the coach said. Is there something where the coach said this publicly?

https://nypost.com/2024/09/26/sports/mo ... king-exit/

Not trying to argue. Just think we don’t really know what happened and the lack of anything written is fishy. And the intro of the agent after a couple of wins is really strange.
I did a lot of searching but as I suspected the hc isn't going to hold a press conf and say that or report that to a newspaper/media outlet. There are multiple articles that do say that the HC knows that the oc offered the money(after the fact) but because it didn't come from him it doesn't count.

Now this part is all assumption on my part........1. the oc is his boy he isn't about to out him, if he does he'll probably have to fire him and they are 3-0...he doesn't want that 2. if he outs him publicly then he is on the hook because he is supposed to know about everything that runs through his program, the good the bad the ugly...that's part of his job. by publicly admitting that he would essentially put himself on the chopping block, he isn't doing that. Now it says that his agent tried to get him 150k but they settled on 100k. now i believe unlv wasn't/hadn't paid the 100k and the agent tried to now get the 150k...that's where I think the middle line is.....the athlete and his family are wrong for trying to get more and the school is wrong for not paying what they initially said....again this is speculation and thinking the kid is completely innocent in this...there is middle ground imo.

As stated I think there is some lying by both....my most basic point is that money was offered in some capacity and wasn't paid, that isn't the kids fault..it WAS his mistake but not his fault.
Agree the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.



BobcatBuiltTexan
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:25 am

Re: Backups

Post by BobcatBuiltTexan » Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:07 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:03 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:29 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 4:51 pm
Hi @BobcatBuiltTexan . I found this article regarding what the head coach said About an offer from the OC. Based on the article, the father of Sluka alleges what the coach said. Is there something where the coach said this publicly?

https://nypost.com/2024/09/26/sports/mo ... king-exit/

Not trying to argue. Just think we don’t really know what happened and the lack of anything written is fishy. And the intro of the agent after a couple of wins is really strange.
I did a lot of searching but as I suspected the hc isn't going to hold a press conf and say that or report that to a newspaper/media outlet. There are multiple articles that do say that the HC knows that the oc offered the money(after the fact) but because it didn't come from him it doesn't count.

Now this part is all assumption on my part........1. the oc is his boy he isn't about to out him, if he does he'll probably have to fire him and they are 3-0...he doesn't want that 2. if he outs him publicly then he is on the hook because he is supposed to know about everything that runs through his program, the good the bad the ugly...that's part of his job. by publicly admitting that he would essentially put himself on the chopping block, he isn't doing that. Now it says that his agent tried to get him 150k but they settled on 100k. now i believe unlv wasn't/hadn't paid the 100k and the agent tried to now get the 150k...that's where I think the middle line is.....the athlete and his family are wrong for trying to get more and the school is wrong for not paying what they initially said....again this is speculation and thinking the kid is completely innocent in this...there is middle ground imo.

As stated I think there is some lying by both....my most basic point is that money was offered in some capacity and wasn't paid, that isn't the kids fault..it WAS his mistake but not his fault.
Agree the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Man I like yall montana folk..... yall some good people.



MSUBobcat04
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:24 pm
Location: Billings, MT

Re: Backups

Post by MSUBobcat04 » Wed Oct 02, 2024 1:58 pm

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:39 pm
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:54 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:53 pm
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:47 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:07 am
91catAlum wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:09 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:02 pm
91catAlum wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:53 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 4:00 pm
RUACAT wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:53 am


I don't have any expectations of him coming here. There's no doubt he's chasing the money.
well i wouldn't over simplify it like that. current reports say that he was promised 100k for relocation(NIL) to unlv. he has received only 3k and the school/collective is refusing to pay him the rest of what he is owed. now if that is true unlv is wrong and the kid should sit out. these schools have to stop lying to kids. if you promise a kid something as a school they should come through, whether that's playing time, NIL, whatever.

look at it like this...the kid keeps playing...lets say unlv goes to the cfp...head coach leaves gets a $3mil raise...kid was promised 100k only gets 3k...he is a grad transfer has zero yrs of eligibility left and he isn't a draft prospect, so for him this money is the only big pay day he's getting. That school and the coaches screwed him over. that isn't fair to him and to chalk it up to that's part of sports....no it USED to be part of sports, now you have to come through or kids will leave

now on the flip side, if the school has paid them everything they said they would he is dead wrong for what he is doing. I totally agree on that part but to assume the kid is just chasing money i feel is the wrong way to approach this. we still don't know which story is the actual truth and until then I will not pass judgement on the kid nor the school.
As far as I know, schools are not allowed to be involved in any NIL money. That all must be privately funded through boosters, corporate sponsorships, etc.

All the school can give is room, board, books, tuition, and a FCOA stipend of a few thousand bucks per year. So UNLV is likely being honest when they say they have fulfilled their financial obligation, as that wouldn't include NIL.
And as someone that has played D1 ball and know the ins and outs of collegiate football, I say hogwash. Those coaches made a promise to that kid and didn't come through. It's a cop out. Schools aren't allowed to be involved with NIL money but they CAN pay players. So if I was a coach and the NIL people welched on their money I would go to the school and get that kid the money because I know that he came because we said that he would get that money. If you think that the coaches/schools don't know about the money the kids are being offered you are sadly mistaken. These coaches know what the kids are being offered and are a part of making sure that they are offered that money because they want to get them. Now due to rules they don't "get involved" but they are fully involved, just like they were involved back in the day when they were paying kids under the table. These coaches have eyes and ears everywhere and they know everything that's going on, its their job to know everything.
I'm sure you're right that the coaches and recruiters made NIL promises, no doubt about that. But the money isn't coming from the school itself. The university itself doesn't owe the kid any more than the things I mentioned above. The NIL collective might owe him but the school does not.
So it has now come out that the OC offered him 100k, he committed, got here only got 3K. They said they would pay him before the season, then told him they would pay him in game checks, then when the dad called and talked to the head coach he told them the OC doesn't have the power make that offer and if it didn't come from him it isn't valid. UNLV is screwing the kid and the kid is doing right so that he can get paid now, as he was promised, and play for a team that will keep their word.
He's a 23/24 year old college graduate. He should know a) the school offering money is non-binding, as it's actually an NCAA violation to pay athletes and b) anything to do with compensation in that high a dollar amount NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING. I'm not saying an assistant coach DIDN'T MAKE the promise, but at that point he should have said, have your collective send over the paperwork. Even when NIL was very new, prior to the 2nd football season it was made legal, MSU student-athletes were given... CONTRACTS (link below). Typically, these contracts involve specific performance, such as appearing in commercials, showing up to events, etc., not playing football. In fact, paying for play is STILL not allowed by the NCAA amateur rules. They are literally being compensated for use of their Name, Image, and Likeness. It was an expensive, unnecessary lesson but one that Sluka will learn from nonetheless.

https://www.kulr8.com/sports/montana-st ... 6a681.html

I'm curious if anyone will even bring him on. I don't think there's many P4 teams that utilize a run-first QB offense and his passing stats against bottom-half competition leave a ton to be desired, completing 21 of 48 (43.75%) for 318 yards (that's over 3 games, not 1). P4 schools don't recruit stud WRs to bring in a QB that runs the ball 13x per game by himself.
1. you are incorrect schools can pay players. Schools haven't figured out how they are going to do that or what it looks like but has been approved that schools can in fact pay players to pay for them.

2. it's wild that you are saying that a kid, regardless of his age, is at fault for believing coaches and are basically shifting the blame all to the kid. You are not holding the grown men accountable for flat out lying but rather saying that a 23/24y/o should have "known better". Please remember that it has been scientifically proven that males do not fully develop mentally until 25 or later. So you are looking at fully developed men and holding them to a lower standard than a person who isn't fully developed yet(as proven by scientific research). That is wild that you are placing all the onus on the player and none on the people that lied to him. But see you can think through all of that because........yup you are a fully develop adult male(I'm guessing)....while we may say he should have known obviously he didn't....and even if you didn't what about the simple morality of the adults involved? You don't feel they should be held accountable?

4. His ability isn't in question nor is the opportunity to go to another team. you say that he won't go to a P4 team....UNLV isn't a P4 team(well they are as of Tuesday...but they weren't when he decided to go there). Him being a top level qb or not isn't in question....it's the morality of the coaches and them not fulfilling promises that were made to him. Who cares how good he is or isn't.......keep your word. The didn't so he isn't playing. It's a shame that the young man has to hold old men accountable to just being good people.

Look at it like this......if you get recruited to a job....they promise you opportunities to advance....you get there and they don't allow you to advance are you going to keep working there or are you going to find a job somewhere else? Same thing here.....
1) I'm starting to understand why you are siding so strongly with Sluka. You are 100% incorrect that a school can pay the student directly for playing for them.

"NCAA rules still prevent schools from paying players directly. This means that college coaches cannot offer money as an incentive for high school athletes to come play at their school, nor can athletes receive compensation directly from their university based upon their athletic achievements. Because the NCAA still intends to maintain its amateur sports status, paying athletes for their play on the field isn’t possible." https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/

"NCAA rules still forbid schools from paying their athletes. However that may change as the result of a May 2024 court settlement." https://www.investopedia.com/nil-and-th ... 20athletes.

The May 2024 settlement reference has not been approved by the judge overseeing the case (Judge Wilkin) expressed concern over the settlement just yesterday. "Wilken is unpersuaded that this new system could realistically distinguish, as the judge put it, “real NIL” versus “pay-for-play.” https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/

As it stands now, and was in effect during his recruitment, a school CANNOT pay an athlete to play for them. It has to be thru a 3rd party (governed by state laws, if enacted) and be for the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (wink, wink) which is where the term NIL came from.

2) Maybe I'm smarter than you average bear, but well before I was Sluka's age, if someone said they'd give me $100k for doing XYZ, I would have said, "Let's see it in writing". So even if he wasn't aware that the school COULD NOT guarantee him any money, he should have been smart enough to get a signed contract. Fully developed male or not. I mean, he's like 1 year short of that by your scientific definition (I don't think that definition is meant to be applied to whether a young male can understand contracts, by the way. Jebus)

3...or 4 since you skipped #3... IMO, morality is in doubt in this he-said-he-said case. Sluka said he was promised $100k, UNLV denies it. So our options are: a) Sluka is monumentally stupid and didn't get a $100k agreement in writing AND UNLV was violating NCAA rules OR b) Sluka was never promised $100k and he felt he could squeeze UNLV after obtaining an agent once the team was winning. His "agent" is not even registered as an agent in Nevada. https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... in-nevada/

The whole thing stinks of money grab to me. I'm inclined to believe the school, you can believe the player, but to do that you're saying he's monumentally stupid and UNLV is back to breaking NCAA rules.

Also... your hypothetical at the end of your post is a false equivalence. He wasn't promised the opportunity to advance; he's already the starting QB FFS. A better example, which I absolutely did after graduating college, would be a prospective employer offered me a job after college offering me a certain salary, benefits and moving expenses. When I found the terms satisfactory (what they call a "meeting of the minds" in contract law), you know what they did??? Sent me a f***ing contract!
let's have a go at it.....

your first point....is completely inaccurate a simple google search pulls this up right here...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... ay-players

they have agreed to pay players so no need to go further into that...but i will

https://www.deseret.com/sports/2024/09/ ... rgia-ncaa/

so yes they can pay them if they so choose to...so once again you are incorrect schools CAN in fact pay players. Now has UNLV done everything to do it...that I don't know but the fact remains...the school CAN in fact pay them

next point I addressed this. you are putting the onus on the young man/kid/athlete and absolving any responsibility of the school/coaches that promised him money..whether the head coach know or not, a representative of the school(the oc) made a promise to the kid and "should" be held accountable. Now am i saying the school HAS to pay, no I am not. I AM saying that he "should" and being that they aren't holding him accountable the athlete is sitting out. Should he got it in writing yes he should have, but once again he trusted the coach on his word. That was where the athlete messed up but once again we are putting ALL the onus on the person that screwed and none to the person that did the screwing. That in and of itself is morally wrong

next point...whether we find it stupid or not he trusted the coaches, I don't find it stupid to build a relationship and inherently trust the people that are supposed to coach you. Athletes do it all the time, not regarding money, but we don't think that is stupid. You are basically saying that anything that a coach promises to a kid(playing time, money, playing a certain position, etc) they should get it in writing. Maybe that should be the case, maybe not. He wasn't breaking any rules because as I posted via links earlier the school CAN in fact pay the athlete.

my hypothetical is in play because a promise was made and wasn't fulfilled. Whether it was a promise to advance....a promise of money....a promise of playing time....a promise of playing a certain position....a promise was made and the athlete came to the school based off that promise. Now should he got something anything that locked the money in, yes I do believe that. But once again you are placing not one iota of responsibility at the feet of the coach/school and putting it all on the athlete...calling him stupid. I find it highly immoral to promise a person anything and follow through on it. Maybe you and I were just raised differently but I don't make a promise and follow through on it..I also don't look at someone else and say that YOU are FULLY at fault for someone else not fulfilling a promise made to you.
Lulz. If you had bothered to read any of the links I posted you'd see that the NCAA rules still say you can't pay players. They DID agree to allowing schools to pay them in MAY, as your ESPN article details, BUT, and this is important, THE JUDGE OVERSEEING THE CASE THREW COLD WATER ON THE AGREEMENT LAST MONTH, i.e. it has not been enacted as of today and most definitely was not allowed when they were recruiting him. Your other article is also moot on the issue because 1) that is a GEORGIA law and UNLV is most certainly NOT in Georgia and 2) Kemp's executive order happened in SEPTEMBER. Also, in the article you posted about the Georgia law, the settlement (if eventually approved) would pay athletes starting in the 2025-26 season (pssst... that's next year). I swear, your reading comprehension is suspect at best.

Next, on whether he can trust the coaches... I say again. Sluka says he was promised, UNLV says he was NOT. Given the fact that there's nothing in writing, and it was and is forbidden for the school to pay him, I'm going to apply Occam's Razor and conclude that UNLV is telling the truth. Otherwise I have to believe that Sluka is telling the truth, but incredibly, monumentally stupid. That just seems too unlikely.

Any way, that's my last comment on the matter since you seem unable to grasp the basic fundamental fact that during recruitment of Sluka last spring, UNLV was not allowed to pay him directly. Have a great day.



asstastic
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:54 am
Location: A Cave in the Musselshell

Re: Backups

Post by asstastic » Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:28 pm

It’s gotta be hard to play KR mainly, or only, and not want to take everything out of the end zone and take it to the house. Latin-Henley, it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission. But don’t pull that crap against Idaho in 2 weeks.


Punchin Griz fans in the mouth since 2002 [-o<

#RTD

19-5-0

BobcatBuiltTexan
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:25 am

Re: Backups

Post by BobcatBuiltTexan » Thu Oct 03, 2024 9:11 am

MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2024 1:58 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:39 pm
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:54 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:53 pm
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:47 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:07 am
91catAlum wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:09 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:02 pm
91catAlum wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:53 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 4:00 pm


well i wouldn't over simplify it like that. current reports say that he was promised 100k for relocation(NIL) to unlv. he has received only 3k and the school/collective is refusing to pay him the rest of what he is owed. now if that is true unlv is wrong and the kid should sit out. these schools have to stop lying to kids. if you promise a kid something as a school they should come through, whether that's playing time, NIL, whatever.

look at it like this...the kid keeps playing...lets say unlv goes to the cfp...head coach leaves gets a $3mil raise...kid was promised 100k only gets 3k...he is a grad transfer has zero yrs of eligibility left and he isn't a draft prospect, so for him this money is the only big pay day he's getting. That school and the coaches screwed him over. that isn't fair to him and to chalk it up to that's part of sports....no it USED to be part of sports, now you have to come through or kids will leave

now on the flip side, if the school has paid them everything they said they would he is dead wrong for what he is doing. I totally agree on that part but to assume the kid is just chasing money i feel is the wrong way to approach this. we still don't know which story is the actual truth and until then I will not pass judgement on the kid nor the school.
As far as I know, schools are not allowed to be involved in any NIL money. That all must be privately funded through boosters, corporate sponsorships, etc.

All the school can give is room, board, books, tuition, and a FCOA stipend of a few thousand bucks per year. So UNLV is likely being honest when they say they have fulfilled their financial obligation, as that wouldn't include NIL.
And as someone that has played D1 ball and know the ins and outs of collegiate football, I say hogwash. Those coaches made a promise to that kid and didn't come through. It's a cop out. Schools aren't allowed to be involved with NIL money but they CAN pay players. So if I was a coach and the NIL people welched on their money I would go to the school and get that kid the money because I know that he came because we said that he would get that money. If you think that the coaches/schools don't know about the money the kids are being offered you are sadly mistaken. These coaches know what the kids are being offered and are a part of making sure that they are offered that money because they want to get them. Now due to rules they don't "get involved" but they are fully involved, just like they were involved back in the day when they were paying kids under the table. These coaches have eyes and ears everywhere and they know everything that's going on, its their job to know everything.
I'm sure you're right that the coaches and recruiters made NIL promises, no doubt about that. But the money isn't coming from the school itself. The university itself doesn't owe the kid any more than the things I mentioned above. The NIL collective might owe him but the school does not.
So it has now come out that the OC offered him 100k, he committed, got here only got 3K. They said they would pay him before the season, then told him they would pay him in game checks, then when the dad called and talked to the head coach he told them the OC doesn't have the power make that offer and if it didn't come from him it isn't valid. UNLV is screwing the kid and the kid is doing right so that he can get paid now, as he was promised, and play for a team that will keep their word.
He's a 23/24 year old college graduate. He should know a) the school offering money is non-binding, as it's actually an NCAA violation to pay athletes and b) anything to do with compensation in that high a dollar amount NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING. I'm not saying an assistant coach DIDN'T MAKE the promise, but at that point he should have said, have your collective send over the paperwork. Even when NIL was very new, prior to the 2nd football season it was made legal, MSU student-athletes were given... CONTRACTS (link below). Typically, these contracts involve specific performance, such as appearing in commercials, showing up to events, etc., not playing football. In fact, paying for play is STILL not allowed by the NCAA amateur rules. They are literally being compensated for use of their Name, Image, and Likeness. It was an expensive, unnecessary lesson but one that Sluka will learn from nonetheless.

https://www.kulr8.com/sports/montana-st ... 6a681.html

I'm curious if anyone will even bring him on. I don't think there's many P4 teams that utilize a run-first QB offense and his passing stats against bottom-half competition leave a ton to be desired, completing 21 of 48 (43.75%) for 318 yards (that's over 3 games, not 1). P4 schools don't recruit stud WRs to bring in a QB that runs the ball 13x per game by himself.
1. you are incorrect schools can pay players. Schools haven't figured out how they are going to do that or what it looks like but has been approved that schools can in fact pay players to pay for them.

2. it's wild that you are saying that a kid, regardless of his age, is at fault for believing coaches and are basically shifting the blame all to the kid. You are not holding the grown men accountable for flat out lying but rather saying that a 23/24y/o should have "known better". Please remember that it has been scientifically proven that males do not fully develop mentally until 25 or later. So you are looking at fully developed men and holding them to a lower standard than a person who isn't fully developed yet(as proven by scientific research). That is wild that you are placing all the onus on the player and none on the people that lied to him. But see you can think through all of that because........yup you are a fully develop adult male(I'm guessing)....while we may say he should have known obviously he didn't....and even if you didn't what about the simple morality of the adults involved? You don't feel they should be held accountable?

4. His ability isn't in question nor is the opportunity to go to another team. you say that he won't go to a P4 team....UNLV isn't a P4 team(well they are as of Tuesday...but they weren't when he decided to go there). Him being a top level qb or not isn't in question....it's the morality of the coaches and them not fulfilling promises that were made to him. Who cares how good he is or isn't.......keep your word. The didn't so he isn't playing. It's a shame that the young man has to hold old men accountable to just being good people.

Look at it like this......if you get recruited to a job....they promise you opportunities to advance....you get there and they don't allow you to advance are you going to keep working there or are you going to find a job somewhere else? Same thing here.....
1) I'm starting to understand why you are siding so strongly with Sluka. You are 100% incorrect that a school can pay the student directly for playing for them.

"NCAA rules still prevent schools from paying players directly. This means that college coaches cannot offer money as an incentive for high school athletes to come play at their school, nor can athletes receive compensation directly from their university based upon their athletic achievements. Because the NCAA still intends to maintain its amateur sports status, paying athletes for their play on the field isn’t possible." https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/

"NCAA rules still forbid schools from paying their athletes. However that may change as the result of a May 2024 court settlement." https://www.investopedia.com/nil-and-th ... 20athletes.

The May 2024 settlement reference has not been approved by the judge overseeing the case (Judge Wilkin) expressed concern over the settlement just yesterday. "Wilken is unpersuaded that this new system could realistically distinguish, as the judge put it, “real NIL” versus “pay-for-play.” https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/

As it stands now, and was in effect during his recruitment, a school CANNOT pay an athlete to play for them. It has to be thru a 3rd party (governed by state laws, if enacted) and be for the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (wink, wink) which is where the term NIL came from.

2) Maybe I'm smarter than you average bear, but well before I was Sluka's age, if someone said they'd give me $100k for doing XYZ, I would have said, "Let's see it in writing". So even if he wasn't aware that the school COULD NOT guarantee him any money, he should have been smart enough to get a signed contract. Fully developed male or not. I mean, he's like 1 year short of that by your scientific definition (I don't think that definition is meant to be applied to whether a young male can understand contracts, by the way. Jebus)

3...or 4 since you skipped #3... IMO, morality is in doubt in this he-said-he-said case. Sluka said he was promised $100k, UNLV denies it. So our options are: a) Sluka is monumentally stupid and didn't get a $100k agreement in writing AND UNLV was violating NCAA rules OR b) Sluka was never promised $100k and he felt he could squeeze UNLV after obtaining an agent once the team was winning. His "agent" is not even registered as an agent in Nevada. https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... in-nevada/

The whole thing stinks of money grab to me. I'm inclined to believe the school, you can believe the player, but to do that you're saying he's monumentally stupid and UNLV is back to breaking NCAA rules.

Also... your hypothetical at the end of your post is a false equivalence. He wasn't promised the opportunity to advance; he's already the starting QB FFS. A better example, which I absolutely did after graduating college, would be a prospective employer offered me a job after college offering me a certain salary, benefits and moving expenses. When I found the terms satisfactory (what they call a "meeting of the minds" in contract law), you know what they did??? Sent me a f***ing contract!
let's have a go at it.....

your first point....is completely inaccurate a simple google search pulls this up right here...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... ay-players

they have agreed to pay players so no need to go further into that...but i will

https://www.deseret.com/sports/2024/09/ ... rgia-ncaa/

so yes they can pay them if they so choose to...so once again you are incorrect schools CAN in fact pay players. Now has UNLV done everything to do it...that I don't know but the fact remains...the school CAN in fact pay them

next point I addressed this. you are putting the onus on the young man/kid/athlete and absolving any responsibility of the school/coaches that promised him money..whether the head coach know or not, a representative of the school(the oc) made a promise to the kid and "should" be held accountable. Now am i saying the school HAS to pay, no I am not. I AM saying that he "should" and being that they aren't holding him accountable the athlete is sitting out. Should he got it in writing yes he should have, but once again he trusted the coach on his word. That was where the athlete messed up but once again we are putting ALL the onus on the person that screwed and none to the person that did the screwing. That in and of itself is morally wrong

next point...whether we find it stupid or not he trusted the coaches, I don't find it stupid to build a relationship and inherently trust the people that are supposed to coach you. Athletes do it all the time, not regarding money, but we don't think that is stupid. You are basically saying that anything that a coach promises to a kid(playing time, money, playing a certain position, etc) they should get it in writing. Maybe that should be the case, maybe not. He wasn't breaking any rules because as I posted via links earlier the school CAN in fact pay the athlete.

my hypothetical is in play because a promise was made and wasn't fulfilled. Whether it was a promise to advance....a promise of money....a promise of playing time....a promise of playing a certain position....a promise was made and the athlete came to the school based off that promise. Now should he got something anything that locked the money in, yes I do believe that. But once again you are placing not one iota of responsibility at the feet of the coach/school and putting it all on the athlete...calling him stupid. I find it highly immoral to promise a person anything and follow through on it. Maybe you and I were just raised differently but I don't make a promise and follow through on it..I also don't look at someone else and say that YOU are FULLY at fault for someone else not fulfilling a promise made to you.
Lulz. If you had bothered to read any of the links I posted you'd see that the NCAA rules still say you can't pay players. They DID agree to allowing schools to pay them in MAY, as your ESPN article details, BUT, and this is important, THE JUDGE OVERSEEING THE CASE THREW COLD WATER ON THE AGREEMENT LAST MONTH, i.e. it has not been enacted as of today and most definitely was not allowed when they were recruiting him. Your other article is also moot on the issue because 1) that is a GEORGIA law and UNLV is most certainly NOT in Georgia and 2) Kemp's executive order happened in SEPTEMBER. Also, in the article you posted about the Georgia law, the settlement (if eventually approved) would pay athletes starting in the 2025-26 season (pssst... that's next year). I swear, your reading comprehension is suspect at best.

Next, on whether he can trust the coaches... I say again. Sluka says he was promised, UNLV says he was NOT. Given the fact that there's nothing in writing, and it was and is forbidden for the school to pay him, I'm going to apply Occam's Razor and conclude that UNLV is telling the truth. Otherwise I have to believe that Sluka is telling the truth, but incredibly, monumentally stupid. That just seems too unlikely.

Any way, that's my last comment on the matter since you seem unable to grasp the basic fundamental fact that during recruitment of Sluka last spring, UNLV was not allowed to pay him directly. Have a great day.
You are more than welcome to exit stage left

NO I didn't read the links because I did my own research. My reading comprehension is just fine. YOURS is the one that is seriously lacking, because I actually addressed every issue that you have. I stated that yes it was passed but they haven't figured out what that looks like and you CAN in fact pay them but you have to jump through hoops(I paraphrased my earlier statements...because I'm pretty sure you are going to try to take my words verbatim and say I didn't say those EXACT words). So my stance remains that you can pay but there are hoops that you have jump through so done with that one.

You are choosing to side with school. NOTHING you have have says they are telling the truth, NOTHING that I have says Sluka is telling the truth. What I can tell you is I have way more experience dealing directly with schools and athletes, so taking that 2 decades of experience of dealing directly with schools and athletes, I'm making the assumption that Sluka is telling more of the truth than the school. I have also stated that there is some lying going on by both entities, I feel the school is doing more of the lying so they are on more of the hook. You feel otherwise, good for you.

Lastly I fully grasp the recruitment of the athlete......YOU are the one that doesn't know shinola from your elbow when it comes to recruiting and what happens behind closed doors. You are ill equipped for this debate because you are lacking full knowledge about how things ACTUALLY go behind closed doors. You are going off of what you see in the light. I am functioning off of what I'm seeing in the light AND what i KNOW happens in the dark. You can't do that because you don't have all the information.......exit stage left.....good day and be blessed.



MSUBobcat04
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:24 pm
Location: Billings, MT

Re: Backups

Post by MSUBobcat04 » Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:38 am

BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2024 9:11 am
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2024 1:58 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:39 pm
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:54 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:53 pm
MSUBobcat04 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:47 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:07 am
91catAlum wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:09 pm
BobcatBuiltTexan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:02 pm
91catAlum wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:53 pm


As far as I know, schools are not allowed to be involved in any NIL money. That all must be privately funded through boosters, corporate sponsorships, etc.

All the school can give is room, board, books, tuition, and a FCOA stipend of a few thousand bucks per year. So UNLV is likely being honest when they say they have fulfilled their financial obligation, as that wouldn't include NIL.
And as someone that has played D1 ball and know the ins and outs of collegiate football, I say hogwash. Those coaches made a promise to that kid and didn't come through. It's a cop out. Schools aren't allowed to be involved with NIL money but they CAN pay players. So if I was a coach and the NIL people welched on their money I would go to the school and get that kid the money because I know that he came because we said that he would get that money. If you think that the coaches/schools don't know about the money the kids are being offered you are sadly mistaken. These coaches know what the kids are being offered and are a part of making sure that they are offered that money because they want to get them. Now due to rules they don't "get involved" but they are fully involved, just like they were involved back in the day when they were paying kids under the table. These coaches have eyes and ears everywhere and they know everything that's going on, its their job to know everything.
I'm sure you're right that the coaches and recruiters made NIL promises, no doubt about that. But the money isn't coming from the school itself. The university itself doesn't owe the kid any more than the things I mentioned above. The NIL collective might owe him but the school does not.
So it has now come out that the OC offered him 100k, he committed, got here only got 3K. They said they would pay him before the season, then told him they would pay him in game checks, then when the dad called and talked to the head coach he told them the OC doesn't have the power make that offer and if it didn't come from him it isn't valid. UNLV is screwing the kid and the kid is doing right so that he can get paid now, as he was promised, and play for a team that will keep their word.
He's a 23/24 year old college graduate. He should know a) the school offering money is non-binding, as it's actually an NCAA violation to pay athletes and b) anything to do with compensation in that high a dollar amount NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING. I'm not saying an assistant coach DIDN'T MAKE the promise, but at that point he should have said, have your collective send over the paperwork. Even when NIL was very new, prior to the 2nd football season it was made legal, MSU student-athletes were given... CONTRACTS (link below). Typically, these contracts involve specific performance, such as appearing in commercials, showing up to events, etc., not playing football. In fact, paying for play is STILL not allowed by the NCAA amateur rules. They are literally being compensated for use of their Name, Image, and Likeness. It was an expensive, unnecessary lesson but one that Sluka will learn from nonetheless.

https://www.kulr8.com/sports/montana-st ... 6a681.html

I'm curious if anyone will even bring him on. I don't think there's many P4 teams that utilize a run-first QB offense and his passing stats against bottom-half competition leave a ton to be desired, completing 21 of 48 (43.75%) for 318 yards (that's over 3 games, not 1). P4 schools don't recruit stud WRs to bring in a QB that runs the ball 13x per game by himself.
1. you are incorrect schools can pay players. Schools haven't figured out how they are going to do that or what it looks like but has been approved that schools can in fact pay players to pay for them.

2. it's wild that you are saying that a kid, regardless of his age, is at fault for believing coaches and are basically shifting the blame all to the kid. You are not holding the grown men accountable for flat out lying but rather saying that a 23/24y/o should have "known better". Please remember that it has been scientifically proven that males do not fully develop mentally until 25 or later. So you are looking at fully developed men and holding them to a lower standard than a person who isn't fully developed yet(as proven by scientific research). That is wild that you are placing all the onus on the player and none on the people that lied to him. But see you can think through all of that because........yup you are a fully develop adult male(I'm guessing)....while we may say he should have known obviously he didn't....and even if you didn't what about the simple morality of the adults involved? You don't feel they should be held accountable?

4. His ability isn't in question nor is the opportunity to go to another team. you say that he won't go to a P4 team....UNLV isn't a P4 team(well they are as of Tuesday...but they weren't when he decided to go there). Him being a top level qb or not isn't in question....it's the morality of the coaches and them not fulfilling promises that were made to him. Who cares how good he is or isn't.......keep your word. The didn't so he isn't playing. It's a shame that the young man has to hold old men accountable to just being good people.

Look at it like this......if you get recruited to a job....they promise you opportunities to advance....you get there and they don't allow you to advance are you going to keep working there or are you going to find a job somewhere else? Same thing here.....
1) I'm starting to understand why you are siding so strongly with Sluka. You are 100% incorrect that a school can pay the student directly for playing for them.

"NCAA rules still prevent schools from paying players directly. This means that college coaches cannot offer money as an incentive for high school athletes to come play at their school, nor can athletes receive compensation directly from their university based upon their athletic achievements. Because the NCAA still intends to maintain its amateur sports status, paying athletes for their play on the field isn’t possible." https://iconsource.com/everything-about-nil/

"NCAA rules still forbid schools from paying their athletes. However that may change as the result of a May 2024 court settlement." https://www.investopedia.com/nil-and-th ... 20athletes.

The May 2024 settlement reference has not been approved by the judge overseeing the case (Judge Wilkin) expressed concern over the settlement just yesterday. "Wilken is unpersuaded that this new system could realistically distinguish, as the judge put it, “real NIL” versus “pay-for-play.” https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2 ... 234796270/

As it stands now, and was in effect during his recruitment, a school CANNOT pay an athlete to play for them. It has to be thru a 3rd party (governed by state laws, if enacted) and be for the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness (wink, wink) which is where the term NIL came from.

2) Maybe I'm smarter than you average bear, but well before I was Sluka's age, if someone said they'd give me $100k for doing XYZ, I would have said, "Let's see it in writing". So even if he wasn't aware that the school COULD NOT guarantee him any money, he should have been smart enough to get a signed contract. Fully developed male or not. I mean, he's like 1 year short of that by your scientific definition (I don't think that definition is meant to be applied to whether a young male can understand contracts, by the way. Jebus)

3...or 4 since you skipped #3... IMO, morality is in doubt in this he-said-he-said case. Sluka said he was promised $100k, UNLV denies it. So our options are: a) Sluka is monumentally stupid and didn't get a $100k agreement in writing AND UNLV was violating NCAA rules OR b) Sluka was never promised $100k and he felt he could squeeze UNLV after obtaining an agent once the team was winning. His "agent" is not even registered as an agent in Nevada. https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... in-nevada/

The whole thing stinks of money grab to me. I'm inclined to believe the school, you can believe the player, but to do that you're saying he's monumentally stupid and UNLV is back to breaking NCAA rules.

Also... your hypothetical at the end of your post is a false equivalence. He wasn't promised the opportunity to advance; he's already the starting QB FFS. A better example, which I absolutely did after graduating college, would be a prospective employer offered me a job after college offering me a certain salary, benefits and moving expenses. When I found the terms satisfactory (what they call a "meeting of the minds" in contract law), you know what they did??? Sent me a f***ing contract!
let's have a go at it.....

your first point....is completely inaccurate a simple google search pulls this up right here...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... ay-players

they have agreed to pay players so no need to go further into that...but i will

https://www.deseret.com/sports/2024/09/ ... rgia-ncaa/

so yes they can pay them if they so choose to...so once again you are incorrect schools CAN in fact pay players. Now has UNLV done everything to do it...that I don't know but the fact remains...the school CAN in fact pay them

next point I addressed this. you are putting the onus on the young man/kid/athlete and absolving any responsibility of the school/coaches that promised him money..whether the head coach know or not, a representative of the school(the oc) made a promise to the kid and "should" be held accountable. Now am i saying the school HAS to pay, no I am not. I AM saying that he "should" and being that they aren't holding him accountable the athlete is sitting out. Should he got it in writing yes he should have, but once again he trusted the coach on his word. That was where the athlete messed up but once again we are putting ALL the onus on the person that screwed and none to the person that did the screwing. That in and of itself is morally wrong

next point...whether we find it stupid or not he trusted the coaches, I don't find it stupid to build a relationship and inherently trust the people that are supposed to coach you. Athletes do it all the time, not regarding money, but we don't think that is stupid. You are basically saying that anything that a coach promises to a kid(playing time, money, playing a certain position, etc) they should get it in writing. Maybe that should be the case, maybe not. He wasn't breaking any rules because as I posted via links earlier the school CAN in fact pay the athlete.

my hypothetical is in play because a promise was made and wasn't fulfilled. Whether it was a promise to advance....a promise of money....a promise of playing time....a promise of playing a certain position....a promise was made and the athlete came to the school based off that promise. Now should he got something anything that locked the money in, yes I do believe that. But once again you are placing not one iota of responsibility at the feet of the coach/school and putting it all on the athlete...calling him stupid. I find it highly immoral to promise a person anything and follow through on it. Maybe you and I were just raised differently but I don't make a promise and follow through on it..I also don't look at someone else and say that YOU are FULLY at fault for someone else not fulfilling a promise made to you.
Lulz. If you had bothered to read any of the links I posted you'd see that the NCAA rules still say you can't pay players. They DID agree to allowing schools to pay them in MAY, as your ESPN article details, BUT, and this is important, THE JUDGE OVERSEEING THE CASE THREW COLD WATER ON THE AGREEMENT LAST MONTH, i.e. it has not been enacted as of today and most definitely was not allowed when they were recruiting him. Your other article is also moot on the issue because 1) that is a GEORGIA law and UNLV is most certainly NOT in Georgia and 2) Kemp's executive order happened in SEPTEMBER. Also, in the article you posted about the Georgia law, the settlement (if eventually approved) would pay athletes starting in the 2025-26 season (pssst... that's next year). I swear, your reading comprehension is suspect at best.

Next, on whether he can trust the coaches... I say again. Sluka says he was promised, UNLV says he was NOT. Given the fact that there's nothing in writing, and it was and is forbidden for the school to pay him, I'm going to apply Occam's Razor and conclude that UNLV is telling the truth. Otherwise I have to believe that Sluka is telling the truth, but incredibly, monumentally stupid. That just seems too unlikely.

Any way, that's my last comment on the matter since you seem unable to grasp the basic fundamental fact that during recruitment of Sluka last spring, UNLV was not allowed to pay him directly. Have a great day.
You are more than welcome to exit stage left

NO I didn't read the links because I did my own research. My reading comprehension is just fine. YOURS is the one that is seriously lacking, because I actually addressed every issue that you have. I stated that yes it was passed but they haven't figured out what that looks like and you CAN in fact pay them but you have to jump through hoops(I paraphrased my earlier statements...because I'm pretty sure you are going to try to take my words verbatim and say I didn't say those EXACT words). So my stance remains that you can pay but there are hoops that you have jump through so done with that one.

You are choosing to side with school. NOTHING you have have says they are telling the truth, NOTHING that I have says Sluka is telling the truth. What I can tell you is I have way more experience dealing directly with schools and athletes, so taking that 2 decades of experience of dealing directly with schools and athletes, I'm making the assumption that Sluka is telling more of the truth than the school. I have also stated that there is some lying going on by both entities, I feel the school is doing more of the lying so they are on more of the hook. You feel otherwise, good for you.

Lastly I fully grasp the recruitment of the athlete......YOU are the one that doesn't know shinola from your elbow when it comes to recruiting and what happens behind closed doors. You are ill equipped for this debate because you are lacking full knowledge about how things ACTUALLY go behind closed doors. You are going off of what you see in the light. I am functioning off of what I'm seeing in the light AND what i KNOW happens in the dark. You can't do that because you don't have all the information.......exit stage left.....good day and be blessed.
Lulz. You addressed nothing and quoted irrelevant data. They literally CAN NOT pay student athletes at this time. I'm done here. Have the day you deserve.



Post Reply