Yep. Having older players has been good for the game.How is it trash? If anything, the college game has been better the last few years in my eyes. When players stay around longer, you've got more better players. It's a better product.
Yep. Having older players has been good for the game.How is it trash? If anything, the college game has been better the last few years in my eyes. When players stay around longer, you've got more better players. It's a better product.
Just depends on how you frame it. In practicality, this would change eligibility from 4 to 5 years, and penalize anyone who doesn’t “play ball” with their original school…for whatever reason.
As a Kentucky fan, I’m just hopeful that Pope does a great job of identifying kids who are inclined to grow with the program and stay long term. That every year isn’t about roster turnover and bidding wars.
I think we’re on the right track, but it’s early yet.
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.Without reading the whole thread up to the point of my post, it wouldn't work because as much as (( I )) [no, that's not a naughty ascii drawing] want college sports to be about the college EDUCATION first (and play in exchange for the free education), the NBA has no regard for the college game. Has the NCAA ever approached the NBA about some sort of agreement like "2 years of college before being drafted, unless you come straight out of highschool"? If so, what was the NBA's response?
I mean… they could just go back to having limitations on transfers.
Exactly. It makes no damn sense.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.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.
Switching from the NCAA to a new organization does not change the antitrust issue.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.
This is something I hadn’t thought of.Let me add that I am 99.99% sure that this would end in a lawsuit, when some unhappy player who felt mistreated by a coach and was denied a 5th year at a transfer destination sues the NCAA, their former coach, the former school, the popcorn vender, the local sheriff, and the town drunk.
Then it’s 5 years for everybody.
And why stop there? I’m still hoping to see John Wall and Demarcus Cousins retain eligibility. They’re all pros now. What’s the difference,
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.
No, I’m telling you what the law says and how it will be applied.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.I mean… they could just go back to having limitations on transfers.