(08-16-2019 09:37 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

So now not only do the players not get paid, but they actually have to pay to play

Dumbest thing ever.

Also, since they are now donors, if they buy a teammate lunch, is that now an improper benefit?

was Billy only about 100 new athletic donors away from meeting the threshold for his bonus metric?

The idea is right but the execution is not good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure he's probably just trying to teach the guys a lesson but it does seem kind of tone deaf and could really backfire.

(08-16-2019 09:51 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  The idea is right but the execution is not good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New take on "buying into the program"?

So if it’s only mandatory for scholarship athletes, are they just deducting an extra $50 from the scholarship these players are receiving?

I have a question...

If you're not allowed to make money from the school, and you're not allowed to make money not from the school...

WHERE THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO PAY THE SCHOOL

There is no way this goes over well. Pandora's Box has just been opened.

(08-16-2019 09:57 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 09:51 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  The idea is right but the execution is not good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New take on "buying into the program"?

Maybe the players haven't bought in figuratively so he is forcing them to buy in literally?

Probably unconstitutional

(08-16-2019 10:46 AM)DrGonzo Wrote:  Probably unconstitutional

I thought you were a criminal defense attorney, not a constitutional law professor?

(08-16-2019 10:40 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 09:57 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 09:51 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  The idea is right but the execution is not good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

New take on "buying into the program"?

Maybe the players haven't bought in figuratively so he is forcing them to buy in literally?

(08-16-2019 10:46 AM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 10:46 AM)DrGonzo Wrote:  Probably unconstitutional

I thought you were a criminal defense attorney, not a constitutional law professor?

How much has Napier donated to the RCAF out of his 2.5 Million salary that's by first question.

Hilarious that he's making them do this though just a rediculous demand from kids who at most make $2500 a semester for that full cost of attendance thing plus a rent check. You have to wonder what's the real purpose of this.

I'd be killing him with it in recruiting if I'm an opposing coach.

The correct way to do this is upon graduation make a $50 donation for them and instill the idea that they should want to give back.

But it’s ULL and doing things the right thing is a foreign concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-16-2019 10:46 AM)DrGonzo Wrote:  Probably unconstitutional

Absolutely. You have a taking issue and freedom of association issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay.... seems that this is not required ... but "encouraged"

https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/spo...709af.html

Quote:Starting with the beginning of this school year, all scholarship UL football players will be encouraged to be a minimal level $50 member of the Ragin' Cajun Athletic Foundation. The move will be optional for walk-on members of the squad.

The optics are just bad on this because it could be used as peer-pressure.

You want Coach to know you as the guy that won't donate?

They just edited the whole article from the title on down. The old one stated it was a team rule that they had to donate. So ULL it's either already backtracking or they called the newspaper to tell them to change the article I'm sure they will be "encouraged" to do so however. Like practices are "voluntary" in the off-season.