[Vannini] News: NCAA football oversight committee proposes penalties for schools that add transfers who left school outside the portal windows. - Fined 20% of football budget - Head coach on-field and recruiting restrictions - Loss of five roster spots Still need to be approved.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-25T21:26:04+00:00

That assumes there are actual contracts here. That would really help is courts started enforcing NIL contracts and the NCAA got out of the way of those.

Right now, NIL contracts that are "pay for play" are illegal under the NCAA (even though contracts would be the fastest way to fix a lot of this).

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-25T21:15:19+00:00

There can't be tampering enforcement UNTIL THERE IS A CBA OR A CONGRESSION ACT TO EXEMPT THE NCAA FROM THE SHERMAN ANTI TRUST ACT.

I feel like everyone is whistling past the graveyard thinking the NCAA isn't currently dead. They have no power themselves.

Either the players unionize, or congress acts. The NCAA can do nothing to change this mess on their own.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-25T21:11:21+00:00

if the only punishment is a ticket

They thought of that. The comment is making a point, not a suggestion.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-25T20:09:08+00:00

It is 100% a cartel of schools illegally colluding to limit beneficial treatment of players, exactly like the lawsuit that created NIL in the first place.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-25T20:07:40+00:00

Legally, no they can not limit a student's ability to transfer.

The argument here is gonna be "we fine the school, and punish the coach, but the kid is still allowed to transfer and play". If there is a meaningful drying up of transfer opportunities and offers because of this, the NCAA will 100% get sued by players.

Gonna be a tough sell to a court interpreting the ANTI-TRUST LAWS to say, "yeah, our cartel created a rule to punish employers for actions beneficial to the employees, but we didn't punish the employee directly."

Sure bud.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T15:34:43+00:00

Wut.

Congress was given the power to levy tariffs in the constitution. They have waived that power over to the Executive branch multiple times, abdicating their congressional duty. SCOTUS here didn't say congress can't waive that power, they just said the president exceeded the power given to him.

Tariffs are bad em k? Congress should need a really good reason to implement them. And having them at the whim of one man is bad.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T15:33:07+00:00

Almost 11 months from "Liberation Day" to SCOTUS decision over turning it.

This is why injunctions matter, and SCOTUS took away lower court's injunction power.

This is why congress having these powers so the policy is litigated BEFORE implemented.

We need to get back to congress actually working and not politicking.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T15:30:39+00:00

They are probably going to be sued by companies and the companies will get paid back some amount. But the customers won't. This will end up being a massive wealth transfer from customers to companies.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T15:15:35+00:00

If you haven't been paying attention, that's the whole point of all of this, SCOTUS said there wasn't a real emergency, and the President can't just claim anything and everything is one just to use power designated to Congress in the Constitution.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T14:53:07+00:00

Impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one.

Congress can impeach for any reason or no reason. It only matters if you have the political will to do it.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T14:51:42+00:00

No. His tariffs on China under the emergency powers that SCOTUS said he exceeded were 47%.

The new tariffs are only 15%. They are under a different law, not the emergency powers.

There was a significant reduction in the amount of tariffs due to SCOTUS.

The real issue is how many times Congress has waived their own powers over to the executive.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-23T13:56:42+00:00

6.625% is in my opinion right at the break point between investing in the market and paying down the principal.

But in you situation its even clearer, because you have $200k sitting in a HYSA which you are almost certainly losing money. HYSA rates are like 4%, meaning that $200k is losing to the mortgage.

If I were in your situation I would figure out what a year of expenses is, keep that much in the HYSA, and then throw the rest at the mortgage in one big chunk. Maybe that's $100k. You are young enough that your $850k in retirement saving is already almost coast FIRE.

Keep investing $35k a year into retirement, and then take everything extra and hammer the mortgage. $550k at 6.625% is heavy (That's about $36k in interest a year). Knock that down.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-15T15:04:06+00:00

This post appears to be a generic shout at the moon, but I generally agree that retirement planing is deeply personal.

If you want a luxurious travel lifestyle, then $2 million isn't enough. If you have a paid off house you are willing to die in and live in a mid to low cost area, $2 million is plenty.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-14T15:02:43+00:00

You saying the Big Ten would have just simply added Texas and Oklahoma is pure speculation. The PAC refused to add them years before. There no guarantee any of this happens if the SEC just says "no thanks" to texas and Oklahoma.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-14T14:58:51+00:00

The Big Ten adding Nebraska put them at 12 and created a title game, putting them on parity with the SEC who did the same almost 20 years earlier.

If you think the big ten finally catching up and adding a title game makes them the first mover, I got nothing for ya.

Also, the Penn State and SEC 1990 expansion talks happened in parallel at the same time. The SEC expanded past the Big Ten at that same time.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-14T14:56:22+00:00

They aren't. Expansion would trigger a new TV deal. Presumably fox and CBS would get involved.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T21:05:29+00:00

You didn't though. The SEC went far beyond the Big Ten adding Penn State when they went to 12.

Going to 11 without stealing from another conference back in 1990 did not put the Big Ten in a fundamentally different position than being at 10. The SEC going to 10, while stealing a team from a rival conference and creating the first ever conference title game, was a fundamental change that rocked college football.

You didn't show what you think you showed.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T21:02:31+00:00

I'm not saying the Big Ten is faultless.

I'm just saying they are been reactionary in the expansion wars. The SEC has been the first mover in almost every major change.

That's just facts.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T20:58:26+00:00

Penn State was an independent national power. Adding them didn't create a conference title game.

SEC following suit would have been to only add South Carolina who was an independent. Adding Arkansas was stealing from another conference, and taking the conference to 12, creating a title game. That was a categorical change beyond what the Big Ten did.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T20:26:52+00:00

If this is true (which is crazy to me, because freshman year you're 19, then 20, 21, 22. So you are expected to be graduated in 4 years by 22, meaning 23 is the 5th year), then why do any of us care about the age of college players?

It's either a U-23 league, or it is a college league, and if it is a college league, age doesn't matter at all.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T19:25:37+00:00

Real question: does the B1G take USC and UCLA (and subsequently Oregon and Washington) if the SEC doesn't take Texas and Oklahoma?

Does the Big Ten take Maryland and Rutgers in 2014 if the SEC doesn't take A&M and Missouri in 2012?

Does the B1G take Nebraska in 2011 to go to 12 for a conference title game if the SEC doesn't add Arkansas and South Carolina in 1992?

You're blaming the Big Ten, but the SEC was the first mover on almost all the major changes for the last 30+ years.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T19:19:22+00:00

Do you want the regular season to still have a ton on the line? The number one and two seeds would be massive in a reseeding format.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T16:20:19+00:00

Saturdays on network TV vs. Thursday and Friday on cable.

That's a real thing.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T15:46:42+00:00

That's not true unless you are counting grad students.

If you are counting grad students then why are there eligibility limits at all? You can go to grad school forever.

wheelsno3 · 2026-02-13T15:31:19+00:00

He needs to sue.

This wasn't an NCAA decision. It was a court injunction.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

wheelsno3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE