School A to School B back to School A. Never sit out.
Immediate eligibility is what’s wrong with college sports today.
Immediate eligibility is what’s wrong with college sports today.
free agency
- Thread starter pseudonym
- Start date
Blame coaches for that one. They move around for the money, and that is what has caused this.
Yep. The new era of college sports sucks. But Mississippi has been so far ahead of the curve than almost everyone in adapting to it. Meanwhile, Mississippi State has been Mississippi State'ing it. "I'm not contributing to NIL to give my hard earned money to those mercenaries. I'm gonna keep giving to the Bulldog Club to pay exorbitant coaches salaries. Who cares if they can't recruit players because they've got no NIL backing."
I blame the NCAA for slowly opening up immediate eligibility. They kept making exceptions until, finally, it was wide open. Had they never made an exception or new rule, players would still have to sit out one year after a transfer. It was the one thing they could have controlled. Now, the cat's out of the bag, and they don't have the political will to go back.
That's the ironic thing: People think NIL is the problem. It's not. And paying players was inevitable anyway. They couldn't stop it. Immediate eligibility is the problem and wasn't inevitable. They could have maintained transfer rules had they been wise enough. They weren't.
Also, their old transfer rules were too punitive to the players if they didn't grant the exception. The rule should have always been, sit out a year for your first transfer. You can go on scholarship immediately, and the year you sit doesn't count towards your 5 years to play 4 (so you can still redshirt at either the old or new school). Second transfer, you sit a year and it does count towards 5 to play 4. No exceptions, except maybe for a graduate transfer.
It's not the coaches fault. That is the biggest bunch of what about ism.
There is immediate eligibility mess because seven states sued the NCAA, and once again in their infinite wisdom, courts decided the ncaa can't enforce their transfer rules. So here we are.
https://theathletic.com/5121301/2023/12/07/ncaa-antitrust-lawsuit-transfer-eligibility-rule/
There is immediate eligibility mess because seven states sued the NCAA, and once again in their infinite wisdom, courts decided the ncaa can't enforce their transfer rules. So here we are.
https://theathletic.com/5121301/2023/12/07/ncaa-antitrust-lawsuit-transfer-eligibility-rule/
NIL wouldn't be a problem if payments were truly for NIL. Example: Bryce Young with subway and Dr Pepper.
The reason nil is a problem is the courts told the ncaa that they can't enforce their rules regarding nil.
Example: Tennessee offering a kid $8million nil contract if he signs a contract with their collective. Straight pay for sign. Because you have no rules now.
The reason nil is a problem is the courts told the ncaa that they can't enforce their rules regarding nil.
Example: Tennessee offering a kid $8million nil contract if he signs a contract with their collective. Straight pay for sign. Because you have no rules now.
Agree. If they ever tried to get rid of immediate eligibility (unlikely), they would have to pair it with some other concession. I think easing the five-year clock for people sitting out due to transfer would be a good concession to make.
This one is crazier, but at least when the dust settles, he will have only played for one team:
sports.yahoo.com
Iowa OT Kadyn Proctor reportedly leaving Hawkeyes after 2 months, likely returning to Alabama
The former five-star recruit and freshman starter appears to be returning to Alabama.
sports.yahoo.com
I don’t have a problem with transfers being immediately eligible. Coaches get hired/fired or leave for other schools at the drop of a hat. The situation can change pretty drastically for a player overnight. Plus, scholarships are annual things. There is no commitment on the part of the school past one year.
There's a reason pro sports have contracts. On March 13, 2024, Cousins signed a four-year contract with the Atlanta Falcons. It wouldn't work if Cousins could just decide after the 2024 season (or even this summer) to go play for a different team without a trade.
There aren't contracts in college sports. Allowing players to transfer and receive scholarship money while sitting out one year is not overly restrictive. And it is the only thing that could bring sanity to the free agency.
The ncaa was sued by 7 states. The court placed an injunction against the ncaa. Read the athletic article.
Are you referring to immediate eligibility after transfer? Or compensation? Can you link the article?
I don’t even understand the comparison you are trying to make. Kirk cousins, like you mentioned, has a signed contract legally obligating the 2 sides to perform whatever is in the contract. The only binding agreement the player and school has is for a 1 year scholarship (letter of intent). Once that one year agreement is up, why should the player be bound to the school or suffer a penalty? Seems like both sides upheld their end of the bargain. And you also can’t act like coaches aren’t using this to their advantage now. I personally know of baseball players (not saying state players) who were told to enter the portal because the coach needed their roster spot for someone else that wanted to transfer into the school.
edited to add: the stuff with the Iowa OL going back to Bama after 2 months is ridiculous. That should not be allowed. My discussion in this thread is around players who transfer after having played the full season.
Unless I am missing something, I don't care if they get rid of the five year clock altogether. If somebody goes to school four years and doesn't play and somehow develops into a college athlete and wants to go to school four more years and play, fine by me. Somebody starts their college career and flames out after a year b/c of being immature, and wants to come back as a 24 year old with 3 years of eligibility, that also seems fine to me.
I can see that opening the door to some rough players being on campus, but that door is already open as far as I can tell.
If you are referring to the immediate eligibility issue, that ultimately could ahve happened regardless. But the genesis of that suit was them being arbitrary and capricious in who they let transfer with eligibility and who they didn't. If they had simply required players to sit out, you might not have seen anybody file litigation over it. Or alternatively, required players to sit out unless they met some requirements for hardship and applied the rules evenly and fairly, they could have probably avoided litigation for even longer. But of course the NCAA isn't really capable of acting fairly.
So 28 year olds who screwed up, playing against 19 year olds.
and lets welcome back home 43 year old marcus bullard to finish out his career too.
Last edited:
I think a kid being able to leave shouldnt be an issue. As you stated. Both sides only agreed to 1 year..... However being that sports are NCAA governed, the NCAA needs to do whats best for the sport and all athletes, not just the unhappy ones wanting to go elsewhere.
Allowing them to leave and making all athletes sit one season before being able to play again OR go juco if they want to play immediately...... is something that would hold up in court and should be easy to imply. No IFs this or IF that.
They transfer. They sit. Seems easy enough.
Once all the court cases got rolling, this was always going to be the outcome. The supreme court isn't going to allow college athletes to be treated like special citizens who have fewer rights than regular students who can transfer as many times as they want (depending academic factors).
The NCAA could've headed all this off with a modest revenue sharing/NIL scheme YEARS ago, but their stubbornness has brought the whole system down.
Exactly. This didn't happen overnight. They started making exceptions and slight rule changes. At that point, there is a legitimate legal argument for why you can't make me sit out if you didn't make Player X sit out. The point is they never should have opened the box in the first place.
What? The courts have already signaled that under the current amateur status regime they favor no transfer restrictions.
I mean, it doesn't seem to be a big problem now. It doesn't seem obvious to me that it would be a problem if you let people that started their college career be on the same footing as those that did not. I do think high schoolers with DI talents mostly do get to campus and have for the last two decades, so maybe it's not a problem now because the vast majority of people with the natural ability end up starting their clock.
courts cant make the rules. They can only deem what is legal and not legal.
if the ncaa had a rule in place that everyone that transferred had to sit one season. The court wouldnt over turn. They may not like it. But its not illegal.
The point is pro sports have contracts. That's the only way to make it work. That isn't an option in college sports. So, there has to be some other mechanism for preventing players from jumping around every year.
People think college football is like professional football now that they are paid. It's not. What's happening in college football doesn't happen in pro sports because, in pro sports, players have contracts.
I'm unaware of a court ruling that the NCAA can't make rules for its member universities. The legal argument is when you start letting Player A play without sitting out, you can't require Player B to sit out.
It is naive to think that box wasn’t going to be opened. The well-paid coaches able to come and go as they damn well pleased.
It was only a matter of time that those kids in the trenches sought the same freedom of movement.
This.
As long as the rules and bylaws are the same for ALL....
Make everyone sit a year, regardless of the circumstance, and you have zero issues. Student/athletes are free to leave and find another place. Keep the portal open. But they cannot play for 1 full season.
So again. Marcus Bullard. Started school. Hit a rough patch. In your scenario would be able to come back at age 43, and play, somewhere.
Thats the door being opened by allowing that.
They've already said they're likely to make transfer restrictions illegal, if a case ever goes to trial. The court will look at athletes as regular students, not a special class.
a student can transfer. They are free to transfer. Heck keep the portal wide open. Just let it be known if they enter, they have to sit 1 season before being allowed to play.
There are universities all over the country right now that dont allow transfer students to participate in things like frats and sorotities. This is no different.
Its done all over the country at the high school level. Change schools, but if you change we arent going to let you play this season.. done in this state right this moment. Its not illegal, and no court is going to step in and make it legal.
The court prefers no transfer restrictions, but it cannot and will not tell the NCAA how to rule itself. If the NCAA has a fair rule, that is no biased towards anyone, the court isnt going to step in and change that rule. Just like the court system cant tell MLB how to run their business model, neither can they the NCAA model as long as its fair
And if college athletes signed employment contracts with conferences/NCAA, the courts would back off.
you could go that direction if you wanted.
again you could go any direction you want as long as it is fair to everyone. This started because the NCAA was screwing up who was allowed a transfer waiver and who wasnt. There were no real guidelines and no standards.
When brought to court, the ncaa basically folded because they knew they were had. And they were had not because making kids sit out a year is wrong... its because they had no system in place to make the transfer process fair to everyone. Thus the transfer portal was created......
If the NCAA has a fair process, the courts will not interfere.
So if they just added a rule to the portal that said, if you enter you are forfeiting your rights to play until March 20th, 2026. Then its fair for everyone.... and the courts wouldnt do a darn thing about it
I disagree. If from day one the NCAA said that you sit out after transferring, no exceptions, we wouldn’t be where we are.
And the coaches can bounce around so the players should too argument is an incomplete argument. Why do coaches changing schools mean that players should be able to transfer without sitting?
And for what it’s worth, players are now moving around more than coaches, and it is only accelerating. It would be an improvement if players moved around as much as coaches.
So if Marcus Bullard's twin brother had gotten arrested and sentenced his senior year of high school, he is fine to come back at 43 but Marcus isn't?
I do think it's a little more damning to still be that stupid after getting a chance to escape your environment versus being that stupid before you get to college. And I'm not necessarily opposed to drawing the line over that, but it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Seems like it would make more sense to just have an age limit, which I'd also be fine with.
That phrase is doing a lot of work there. This could have been delayed another 20 or 30 years by the NCAA being smart with its rules and trying to maintain at least the appearances of being fair. Sure, you may ultimately end up in the same place, but lots of things can happen in a couple of decades (or even one decade) that make things easier.
It's like saying we're going to have to cut social security and medicare at some point. Might as well do it now. Sure, there is a fairness argument to that, but what if we just increased benefits by Chained CPI and the extra 5 to 10 years it bought us allowed AI breakthroughs that doubled productivity? Be a lot easier to deal with at that point rather than just saying an extra decade or two doesn't matter.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.