OMG an actual good idea
- Thread starter University-6
- Start date
It would help schools In a sense that for a guy transferring their NIL deal would have to be worth at least 2 years at their current school. Could help roster stability somewhat but I doubt it ever gets past. Only a salary cap will fix a lot of issues, structure it like the pros. Guys who are on one team are eligible for a bigger max than if they get traded or seimthing like it.
The NBA won’t go along. I think it’s probably been addressed, and the NBA would rather have the players leave college ASAP and put them in the G league for further evaluation.
When it was just the coaches with the power to move whenever they wanted, all was well in college sports. It didn't matter about coaches lying to players about playing time and/or their longevity as coach to get them to sign. It didn't matter that the aforementioned acts of coaches would trap players into bad situations if they weren't willing to sit out a year. Some felt that this was normal even when coaches were leaving for more money or because of violations. Well, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and I have no issues with it. Players deserve the right to leverage their talents to maximize their earning potential while they can because most won't go pro or get degrees. Most players are currently experiencing their greatest earning potential.
This. Imo it isnt even a hard legal argument to make. The current perceived state of the law is there cant be any limitations on athletes because there are none on regular students. The limitations on athletic participation following a transfer squarely fits even in this wobbly state of the law.
Schools just need to point out they arent saying a student athlete can't transfer. They can transfer wherever they want without limitations. However the allowed participation is something above and apart from the actual scholastic transfer.
If schools cant put reasonable limits on participation, why can there be any eligibility limitations, scholarship numbers, or anything that prevents any regular student from just showing up demanding to be on the team.
That’s not the legal argument against the transfer rules. The legal argument is on antitrust grounds.
And the NCAA agreed to drop transfer restrictions as part of settling the recent lawsuit brought by several state Attorneys General and joined by the DOJ. That settlement includes a pending consent decree that would permanently ban the NCAA from creating any new rules limiting the eligibility of transfers.
Kansas already tried this, didn't Perry Ellis stay like 10 years or so.
I didn't say it was. I said its the perceived state of the law. I say perceived because there was a negative ruling or two that made the NCAA sh1t its pants and give away the farm in the interest of self preservation.
Im also not talking about the ncaa. The ncaa is literally worthless and the sec big 10 growth clearly indicates they are close to just reforming another organization or just none at all.
So once these schools are out from under the ncaa banner, they will have more flexibility and can start trying to get some sensible limitations back in place. Courts will ultimately agree once theyre presented with reasonable arguments.
Switching from the NCAA to a new organization does not change the antitrust issue.
It is illegal for a group of competing organizations to come together and make an agreement on these types of rules. Whether they make that agreement under the auspices of the NCAA or some newly formed entity, it raise the same antitrust issues.
This is something I hadn’t thought of.
There will be players looking for waivers because their coaches left or they had to switch schools because of an illness in the family, etc.
That’s inevitable.
And it would essentially be extending eligibility to five years.
But as a guy who it took five years to get his undergrad degree, I have no problem with it. Those with NBA/pro aspirations will not really be affected.
You are talking about how things are. Im talking about how things should/could be.
Reforming doesn't change the law but the law as applied to this issue isnt nearly as set. Reforming resets the playing field by getting out from under the agreement. Then they get to take another shot.
The current legal landscape was completely out of line by suggesting schools cant make reasonable limitations. Rather than fight, the ncaa chose self preservation.
If they can't make any rules limiting participation then why can they enforce the limitations on how many years they can participate? Instead of 4, it should be perpetual.
If they cant limit who can participate, then maybe i now identify as a member of the uk basketball team and ill expect to be at the end of the bench this season.
Is that ridiculous? Of course. But no more ridiculous than any logic that suggests there should never be any limitations. So reform, reset, and this time dont cave.
No, I’m telling you what the law says and how it will be applied.
Reforming doesn’t change that, nor does any vague assertion about a new organization putting up more of a fight.
Anticompetitive behavior is anticompetitive behavior, no matter how you try to justify that to a court, and you cannot circumvent that by forming a new organization. The transfer rule plainly violated the law.
They can’t really, unless it collectively bargained with the players. Any movement restriction would be struck down in court.
Edit- someone already said it
Similar threads
