Jump to content

New Program GM and Scouting/Development Director


au302

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

That was before NIL and conference expansion. Times are changing and Auburn better get it going soon or we truly will be a basketball/baseball school. We may need to reconfigure Jordan-Hare to accommodate a baseball diamond. 

Jordan Hare Aubietron watch parties would be epic

Link to comment
Share on other sites





13 hours ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

The NCAA has already been neutered on the NIL subject matter. They have no control over it since it was a congressional act

I am curious about what you mean by neutered.  The NCAA just made rules regarding what is permissible and impermissible benefits regarding NIL contracts.  Are you saying schools can just arbitrarily disregard those rules because the NCAA has been neutered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carnell said:

I am curious about what you mean by neutered.  The NCAA just made rules regarding what is permissible and impermissible benefits regarding NIL contracts.  Are you saying schools can just arbitrarily disregard those rules because the NCAA has been neutered

Yes. Look up the antitrust lawsuits that would happen Here if the NCAA acted on any NIL "penalties". Nobody will go down for NIL, that's why you see so many schools doing whatever they want with it MOSTLY out in the open.

Edited by WDE_OxPx_2010
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Carnell said:

I am curious about what you mean by neutered.  The NCAA just made rules regarding what is permissible and impermissible benefits regarding NIL contracts.  Are you saying schools can just arbitrarily disregard those rules because the NCAA has been neutered

The NCAA moves at a glacial pace. They were caught with their pants down when the SCOTUS ruled on NIL, Emmert has been forced into retirement and completely muted. 

They've done nothing to regulate this wide open transfer portal, WHY? It would curb the tampering & NIL bidding wars we saw recently.  Instead they removed the annual  scholarship cap, now teams can sign as many as they can take up to the 85 man roster.   

Their rules are the same relative to a booster's involvement in the recruiting process, they simply tried to reiterate their existing rule and schools are ignoring it.  They won't even attempt go after a program that's been flagrantly bidding on recruits because most of the big time NIL collectives are made up of attorneys, i.e. aTm/Miami/Texas.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JerryAU said:

The NCAA moves at a glacial pace. They were caught with their pants down when the SCOTUS ruled on NIL, Emmert has been forced into retirement and completely muted. 

They've done nothing to regulate this wide open transfer portal, WHY? It would curb the tampering & NIL bidding wars we saw recently.  Instead they removed the annual  scholarship cap, now teams can sign as many as they can take up to the 85 man roster.   

Their rules are the same relative to a booster's involvement in the recruiting process, they simply tried to reiterate their existing rule and schools are ignoring it.  They won't even attempt go after a program that's been flagrantly bidding on recruits because most of the big time NIL collectives are made up of attorneys, i.e. aTm/Miami/Texas.   

 

First of all they don't regulate the transfer portal because they created it with the intent to be wide open.  The NCAA has lawyers themselves and why do you think these institutions with lawyers don't sue the Ncaa when they go on probation is because these judges don't want to be burden by nonregulatory disputes. 

 

Back to NIL the SC decision addressed only the student athelete and educational benefits.  The decision specifically stated it is not addressing the pay for play aspect.  The NCAA is addressing the recruiting side because in no way can a recruit be considered a student athlete of the institution and therefore not covered under the SC decision.  In fact the decision specifically stated that the NCAA can establish reasonable guidelines for pay for play.  

You may think that they won't go after schools that flagrantly violating their rules but I believe they formalized these rules of May of this year.  The NCAA is like a viper lying in wait for those institutions that are like you guys that think they have been deemed irrevalent by SC.  They will strike when they want to make an example of the institution that want that try to rub their nose into the SC decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnell said:

First of all they don't regulate the transfer portal because they created it with the intent to be wide open.  The NCAA has lawyers themselves and why do you think these institutions with lawyers don't sue the Ncaa when they go on probation is because these judges don't want to be burden by nonregulatory disputes. 

 

Back to NIL the SC decision addressed only the student athelete and educational benefits.  The decision specifically stated it is not addressing the pay for play aspect.  The NCAA is addressing the recruiting side because in no way can a recruit be considered a student athlete of the institution and therefore not covered under the SC decision.  In fact the decision specifically stated that the NCAA can establish reasonable guidelines for pay for play.  

You may think that they won't go after schools that flagrantly violating their rules but I believe they formalized these rules of May of this year.  The NCAA is like a viper lying in wait for those institutions that are like you guys that think they have been deemed irrevalent by SC.  They will strike when they want to make an example of the institution that want that try to rub their nose into the SC decision.

Auburn can be the poster child of NCAA compliance and avoid their dangerous venom if they choose. 

We'll just have to see how our athletic programs compete vs the likes of  aTm/Miami/Tenn/Texas/USC/uat/uga/FSU/OSU as they stack their rosters with the nations top players and rape the transfer portal for talent every year. 

The NCAA needs to show some action if they want to be taken seriously.  Their rules are ignored by most programs and as long as they let crap like LSU (Will Wade) run on for years with no verdict or punishment of any kind, they'll continue to be ignored. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

Auburn can be the poster child of NCAA compliance and avoid their dangerous venom if they choose. 

We'll just have to see how our athletic programs compete vs the likes of  aTm/Miami/Tenn/Texas/USC/uat/uga/FSU/OSU as they stack their rosters with the nations top players and rape the transfer portal for talent every year. 

The NCAA needs to show some action if they want to be taken seriously.  Their rules are ignored by most programs and as long as they let crap like LSU (Will Wade) run on for years with no verdict or punishment of any kind, they'll continue to be ignored. 

 

I willing to be that the NCAA will not tolerate having their noses rub into the ground by any school including Alabama.  So if any of those schools blatantly break the NCAA rules regarding NIL, I will bet the NCAA will jump down their Arse.  That what got alabama on probation the first time.  It was not that Alabama broke the rules it was that Bama tried to rub the NCAA nose in it by lying to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Yes. Look up the antitrust lawsuits that would happen Here if the NCAA acted on any NIL "penalties". Nobody will go down for NIL, that's why you see so many schools doing whatever they want with it MOSTLY out in the open.

I could be wrong so anyone that reads the Scotus decision differently feel free.  But I read the decision as Scotus saying that denying the student athlete the right to his/her name is a violation of anti trust.  The decision in does not address recruits and I don't think anyone can jump to the conclusion that a recruit is a student athlete of the institution that is covered under SCOTUS.  In fact, the decision specifically states that the decision in no way addresses the pay for play and specifically states that the NCAA can still issue rulings for pay for play.  The NCAA has only issued rulings associated with NIL in the recruiting process which does not appear to violate the SCOTUS decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carnell said:

First of all they don't regulate the transfer portal because they created it with the intent to be wide open.  The NCAA has lawyers themselves and why do you think these institutions with lawyers don't sue the Ncaa when they go on probation is because these judges don't want to be burden by nonregulatory disputes. 

 

Back to NIL the SC decision addressed only the student athelete and educational benefits.  The decision specifically stated it is not addressing the pay for play aspect.  The NCAA is addressing the recruiting side because in no way can a recruit be considered a student athlete of the institution and therefore not covered under the SC decision.  In fact the decision specifically stated that the NCAA can establish reasonable guidelines for pay for play.  

You may think that they won't go after schools that flagrantly violating their rules but I believe they formalized these rules of May of this year.  The NCAA is like a viper lying in wait for those institutions that are like you guys that think they have been deemed irrevalent by SC.  They will strike when they want to make an example of the institution that want that try to rub their nose into the SC decision.

You are referring to the Alston SC case that did not hear NIL issues.

House v NCAA is a ongoing case in the 9th circuit of Cali challenging the NCAA's restriction's limiting NIL.  The verdict is still out literally on the issue of whether NCAA has enforcement power regarding NIL and I guarantee the NCAA will not enforce any penalties against schools for NIL infractions until that case has been run all the way to SCOTUS, where I bet the NCAA loses again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carnell said:

I could be wrong so anyone that reads the Scotus decision differently feel free.  But I read the decision as Scotus saying that denying the student athlete the right to his/her name is a violation of anti trust.  The decision in does not address recruits and I don't think anyone can jump to the conclusion that a recruit is a student athlete of the institution that is covered under SCOTUS.  In fact, the decision specifically states that the decision in no way addresses the pay for play and specifically states that the NCAA can still issue rulings for pay for play.  The NCAA has only issued rulings associated with NIL in the recruiting process which does not appear to violate the SCOTUS decision.

Alston did not address NIL in any way.  Your bolded statement is correct though.  I just read the SC opinion for Alston.  NIL restrictions will be decided soon though, House v NCAA is making its way through its case at the district court right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Didba said:

Alston did not address NIL in any way.  Your bolded statement is correct though.  I just read the SC opinion for Alston.  NIL restrictions will be decided soon though, House v NCAA is making its way through its case at the district court right now.

Thanks for the info.

Edited by Carnell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Didba said:

You are referring to the Alston SC case that did not hear NIL issues.

House v NCAA is a ongoing case in the 9th circuit of Cali challenging the NCAA's restriction's limiting NIL.  The verdict is still out literally on the issue of whether NCAA has enforcement power regarding NIL and I guarantee the NCAA will not enforce any penalties against schools for NIL infractions until that case has been run all the way to SCOTUS, where I bet the NCAA loses again.

I hope you are right but with the SC stating in the original decision stating they were not going to address the pay for play will signal to the NCAA that the court is not going in that direction and will enforce the NIL rules immediately unless someone get a restraining  order against the NCAA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carnell said:

I hope you are right but with the SC stating in the original decision stating they were not going to address the pay for play will signal to the NCAA that the court is not going in that direction and will enforce the NIL rules immediately unless someone get a restraining  order against the NCAA.  

I'm confused (not surprisingly - lol):dead:

Do you mean a student-athlete would seek a restraining order against the NCAA?  The NCAA is made up of member institutions, so no member of the NCAA is going to seek a restraining order against themselves.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

I'm confused (not surprisingly - lol):dead:

Do you mean a student-athlete would seek a restraining order against the NCAA?  The NCAA is made up of member institutions, so no member of the NCAA is going to seek a restraining order against themselves.  

 

Not necessarily, I was speaking about the House vs NCAA lawsuit that the plaintiff lawyer gets a restraining order against the NCAA from enforcing its NIL rules while the suit makes it way through the court system.  I don't know how feasible that is because I am not an attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL GMs and the coaches they hire generally have the same philosophies. How does this new hire's philosophy match or not match with Harsin? Looking ahead, would Harsin be on a shorter leash if their philosophies don't match and the GM would be looking for a better fit sooner than later? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiger said:

NFL GMs and the coaches they hire generally have the same philosophies. How does this new hire's philosophy match or not match with Harsin? Looking ahead, would Harsin be on a shorter leash if their philosophies don't match and the GM would be looking for a better fit sooner than later? 

Can't answer that per se but only speculate.  I would think that the GM would be involved in any hypothetical coaching search but I believe the AD and President will be making the final decision to retain or fire.  Since the AD hired Harsin I believe that Harsin will have a little bit longer leash.  In addition, I believe money will also play a role into Harsin having a longer leash.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Carnell said:

I hope you are right but with the SC stating in the original decision stating they were not going to address the pay for play will signal to the NCAA that the court is not going in that direction and will enforce the NIL rules immediately unless someone get a restraining  order against the NCAA.  

Not so, the reason they said that was bc that particular topic wasn't directly at issue in the appeal, the Plaintiffs chose not to plead it at the SC. If Ps don't plead the issue then SC cannot rule on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carnell said:

Not necessarily, I was speaking about the House vs NCAA lawsuit that the plaintiff lawyer gets a restraining order against the NCAA from enforcing its NIL rules while the suit makes it way through the court system.  I don't know how feasible that is because I am not an attorney.

its feasible in the since they can try... depends on the judge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carnell said:

Can't answer that per se but only speculate.  I would think that the GM would be involved in any hypothetical coaching search but I believe the AD and President will be making the final decision to retain or fire.  Since the AD hired Harsin I believe that Harsin will have a little bit longer leash.  In addition, I believe money will also play a role into Harsin having a longer leash.

Some folks believe AD Greene's continued employment at Auburn is tied directly to Harsin's success or failure.  :dunno:

 

Edited by JerryAU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

Some folks believe AD Greene's continued employment at Auburn is tied directly to Harsin's success or failure.  :dunno:

 

Might be right but as I said in the post that I believe money is also a factor.  With the new GM I believe he is going to look at coaches let's just say you won't get for $5 mil but more like Saben type money.  With the requirement of having to support 2 unemployed coaches, NIL requirements I don't know how much willingness it will be to raise that much money for a new coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnell said:

Might be right but as I said in the post that I believe money is also a factor.  With the new GM I believe he is going to look at coaches let's just say you won't get for $5 mil but more like Saben type money.  With the requirement of having to support 2 unemployed coaches, NIL requirements I don't know how much willingness it will be to raise that much money for a new coach.

Rednilla's recent thread in the Eagles Nest paints a bleak picture.   The new GM is used to having Jerry Jones level of $$ and that is not what he'll have at Auburn. 

Edited by JerryAU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

Rednilla's recent thread in the Eagles Nest paints a bleak picture.   The new GM is used to having Jerry Jones level of $$ and that is not what he'll have at Auburn. 

So we don't think he knew this before he took the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tiger said:

NFL GMs and the coaches they hire generally have the same philosophies. How does this new hire's philosophy match or not match with Harsin? Looking ahead, would Harsin be on a shorter leash if their philosophies don't match and the GM would be looking for a better fit sooner than later? 

He and Hars are familiar with each other. Have known each other for years. The Cowboys and Boise have a lot of connections, namely Kellen Moore. From what I've read, the Cowboys have agreed with Boise's scout and develop em up plan more than any team.

That said, my guess, and again this is not anything more than what I'm guessing, is that Roberts/Burgess wanted a position like this as they restructure the department to their liking. New President stuff. Rather than go over Hars head and cause even more division, they told him that they wanted this new job created, and asked him to help hire a guy. Thus Hars chose this guy, and they agreed or approved.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...