No more 1 year wait for second transfer after court ruling. https://www.on3.com/os/news/judge-g...tle-lawsuit-over-ncaas-transfer-waiver-rules/
NCAA transfer rules continue to crumble
- Thread starter satcheluk
- Start date
Well it's more of an injunction but I think the legal finding here is absurd.
Honestly, I feel like there were very few guys who had to sit out after transferring twice. I can't wait until we are out of the covid eligibility time, so everyone gets 4 years again. I never know how many years someone has these days.
NCAA bound to lose this. They say players aren’t employees but also try to impose non-competes. Kavanaugh wants to gut ncaa so bad.
We all love to hate the NCAA but there must be a line somewhere. If you can't place rules on them at all....then how can there be a cap on years of participation? By following the "no rules" logic, we end up with no eligibility limitations.
Of course that's absurd, but there must be allowances for schools to place reasonable rules in place on participation.
Of course that's absurd, but there must be allowances for schools to place reasonable rules in place on participation.
It's an injunction, but the NCAA preemptively threw in the towel and announced the transfer and sit a year rule will no longer be enforced. They see the writing on the wall.
Totally agree, but they operated an illegal indentured servitude organization for so long there is bound to be a dramatic pendulum swing in the other direction before it finally settles in a more appropriate place.
I agree the pendulum swinging is expected in the arena of public perception but that isn't how the law is supposed to operate. At the end of the day, the member institutions, through the NCAA, have every legal right to enact reasonable restrictions on participation. What is reasonable is the question.
Instead it seems courts apply a zero limits approach which insane and without any rationale. Using what seems to be their rationale, schools conceivably can't stop non students from being on a team. At this point I'm not sure they can stop any random person in helmet and pads from just walking into the practice field.
Once again it all goes back to inept leadership. Some of the most inept leadership of any organization anywhere. All they had to do years ago was enact the Olympic model and everything would be fine. Instead they stood firm and refused players to get table scraps and now they're doomed and the sports we all love are doomed with them.
So while I get the desire to extract that pound of flesh, the law needs to provide an objective approach which would be the reasonable restriction standard above.
The NCAA is turning things in to the wild west, letting players do things they would never let happen before. Lax rule enforcement, especially to certain schools. One thing for sure, they will still rule Kentucky with an iron fist, big Z would have been playing for a month if he were at Kansas or Duke.
Agreed. It was greed with likely a sprinkle of plantation mentality and now they are getting punished for their ineptitude.
The NCAA definitely has made some bone headed decisions over the years. That being said, any sports league has to have participation rules and rules about how individual teams can obtain players so that the league remains somewhat competitive. If it's a free for all, then teams with the most money will dominate the league and fans will lose interest in the sport. Leagues are not, and cannot, follow a capitalistic model and be successful. They are controlled environments created to keep fan interest in the league. More importantly, participation in a league is purely voluntary. It has never made sense to me how the Government can dictate the rules of an organization in which no one is required to participate. If the "cost" of participation is perceived to be worth what a player gets out of participating, then the player will participate. Otherwise, he/she will not. Why does the Government have standing to get in between two parties acting voluntarily on whether to participate in a sports league?
Mark Emmert should go down in history as the worst CEO of all time. He single handedly destroyed this country’s favorite pastime. Worse than Madoff in my book.
I understand your sentiment, but these rules are not about freedom of association between schools. They are about institutional collusion to limit earning/playing options of individuals. All the pro leagues have employee unions who collectively bargain and anti-trust carve out exemptions from Congress. The NCAA had every chance to find a solution, but they naively thought they could just wait for Congress to intervene and it didn't happen, which is an ironic twist to your last question.
I hope they fix it, but I have zero sympathy for the NCAA and leagues. They held the indentured servitude system as long as they could and now we are all dealing with those poor decisions. I suspect they will consolidate to a 30-40 team single super league, employ the players, collectively bargain in order to get this under control. There would be few enough players and institutions to herd the cats and the single league eliminates those competing entities from mucking it up. Schools like Vandy, Wake Forrest etc will be relegated to the non paying league and have a separate championship. Also, h/t to soccer, I wouldn't mind seeing the bottom teams being relegated and the top lower division teams being offered a promotion if they meet certain funding criteria etc. Maybe they could even have a mixed Championship, "Pros vs Joes."
Last edited:
I agree. I understand the money part and how schools had a stranglehold on things by taking away the rights to market. But eligibility wise I’m not sure how courts have any say. By law, associations have the right to set parameters and participating schools agree to abide in order to join. There are other associations of schools that play sports that players can choose to play in…juco, naia, etc for different sets of rules. I mean that’s true for business associations or academic associations and other things.
But if this is imposed on the NCAA then how can the NCAA impose anything? Why does it have to be a full time student? Why can’t it be a player taking one class a semester as long as they’re enrolled? Or why does anyone even have to be enrolled and schools can make a unilateral decision to employ players instead…school by school. I mean at some point there has to be association enforcements too.
How long before we see players transfer mid-season?
Will we see a receiver make a play to beat an opponent in mid-season, then make a similar play to defeat the school they left in November, in a December play off game?
Will we see a receiver make a play to beat an opponent in mid-season, then make a similar play to defeat the school they left in November, in a December play off game?
The law does not afford Associations free rein to make any rule they want.
Let’s say that all of the big white shoe law firms in the US form a trade association. The association could do things like establish membership eligibility criteria (that applies to the law firms) or lobby legislators.
But there are a number of things the association could do that would get them into legal trouble. For example, they could not agree to a uniform policy on non-compete clauses requiring attorneys to sit out for 12 months if they jumped from one firm in the association to another firm.
That type of rule making would immediately draw antitrust scrutiny. And the fact that employment is voluntary and that there are other types of firms available to attorneys does not change any of that.
There arent non competes, players can go to any other organization they want anytime and play, but if they want to play in this particularly league for college based athletics they have to follow their rules. If they dont they can move on just like any other business.
They can’t go to any organization “anytime”.
That’s the point and why they are in effect non competes which is why the courts are killing the ncaa. The greed and hypocrisy is totally clear.
Either they are employees - in which case they get certain rights - or they are not in which they get other rights. They can’t be both.
At least in Kentucky, a licensed attorney is ethically forbidden from signing a non-compete agreement. It has to do with the 6th Amendment right to counsel.
That’s the case pretty much across most states, but that misses the point.
Were they otherwise permissible on ethics grounds, agreement among firms on non-competes would create antitrust issues, which is what’s relevant to the NCAA case.
But you could plug in any other profession (e.g., physicians, consultants at top tier strategy firms) instead of lawyers in my hypothetical example and you arrive at the same antitrust problem.
How are you going to have a "no pay" league when courts and states have passed laws basically forbidding that? And why do people here think UK has a gold ticket to be one of these 30 or so institutions? This state doesn't have deep pockets.
Yes congress got involved and much like everything else they have gotten involved in the last 75 years they managed to completely ruin a system that has worked for nearly 100 years. People were lining up and competing for scholarships which were worth far more than the 20 hours per week they were allowed to practice. But what can you expect from a group of people that the majority had never had to make a living and votes are bought by the best paying lobbies.
No one was forcing college athletes to accept free education, free tutors, free room and board along with free insurance. If the athlete felt he was getting mistreated he would have gotten a job and paid for all that himself.
interesting cases going on across the country involving fast food restaurants, including Burger King and Papa John's. The franchise agreements forbid them from hiring workers from another franchise. So, if I work at Papa John's on Main Street and get really good at making pizzas, the franchise owner on Oak street wants to hire me away and pay me more, but it violates the franchise agreement. In the meantime, my only skill, making good Papa John's pizzas (if there is such a thing), is no longer marketable. Class actions in multiple federal courts on this. So, I agree generally with your point.
This is an athletic organization for college athletes, they dont have to choose to play in this league if they dont like the rules. Sports leagues will always have some different rules to protect competition for the sport and will never be like real life businesses. If you want to be a true professional employee go do it wherever you think you can, nobody's holding you back have at it. Play semi pro until you can go to the NFL or start our own leagues. You cant say we want to play in your league but by my rules. But if you want to make it that way and be a true employee then fine, lets start 1099 them for the $150K worth of annual benefits they receive like everyone else gets hits. The travel bill, food bill, gear bill, facilities bill, training bill, medical treatment bill, etc would all be treated as income. is that what they want?
Once again. . . the only folks getting rich off this current arrangement are the coaches so direct your ire towards them. The Universities (which are the NCAA everyone says are greedy) put all the money back into the things I listed above FOR THE ATHLETES. Most never make a profit after paying coaches and taking care of the players.
my friend, respectfully, there’s been so much reporting counter your support of the ncaa that I don’t know where to start. You have are out of step with the courts not to mention growing public sentiment over the last 30 years. Have a good one.
