Is there anything legally that would be challenged if the rule was changed back...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Is that how it got changed in the first place? I was thinking someone challenged it in court.
I thought the NCAA just changed it when COVID took over. The rule they just changed was multiple transfer rules. It used to be you were able to transfer once freely without sitting out. I just wish they would go back to the original of you have to sit out regardless. I know we've said this so many times before but it would eliminate 90% of the problems we are having in college sports.
The NCAA settled an antitrust lawsuit by dropping the transfer restriction.
Any court will shoot it down.. The federal government provides all these universities with money to educate students. It's not going to sit idly by and let athletics possibly dictate where a student goes.
Buyout clauses within the NIL
contract would mitigate roster attrition.
If school X wants to take a player from school,Y. School Y should be compensated for any NIL funds given to the player
contract would mitigate roster attrition.
If school X wants to take a player from school,Y. School Y should be compensated for any NIL funds given to the player
Exactly. Model it after European soccer. Players can sign single or multi year contracts. If a player is out of contract, he can transfer for free. If not, the schools negotiate a transfer fee. It’s the only system that will work & stand up to any legal challenge.
It will be hard to put the Genie back in the bottle. Once they've made the ruling, it will be impossible to change it.
Yeah- the restriction and forced redshirt year is fundamentally the issue that will be cited as unlawful.
And the next thing that should fall, based on what has changed over the last 7 years, is dropping the 5 years to play 4 rule(currently 6 for 5).
That restricts student athletes in the same ways.
And the next thing that should fall, based on what has changed over the last 7 years, is dropping the 5 years to play 4 rule(currently 6 for 5).
That restricts student athletes in the same ways.
Yep... let them play while they are grad students.. then why not those chasing a PHD?... It's discrimination based on age to not provide a path to scholarship for all who are looking to further their education...
I don't understand why it would be unlawful. It doesn't restrict your ability to obtain a free education playing a sport. You just have to sit out a year to promote roster stability in a voluntary sports org. If kids were losing their ability to get funded education, then I can understand.
It doesn't. If your education is what matters, transfer to the school of your choice. To compete in the athletics, you sit a year. Feel free to go to class with your year away from sports.
Right. Why stop it here? Let Aaron Rodgers seek a second degree and play for Bama next year. That's his damn right as an American citizen!!!
But when it goes to court the lawyer for Little Johnny is going to argue that Little Johnny cannot seek the education he deserves because State Tech University will not offer him a scholarship if he cannot play immediately.
Voila... Little Johnny is eligible immediately because his federally funded education depends on it.
Telling y'all.. the only way forward is to unwind education from college athletics.
Last edited:
The federal govt has no interest in stabilizing rosters. And it's not voluntary in the eyes of the courts. In their estimation the scholarship he receives is the ONLY way Little Johnny will have access to an education that the taxpayer is helping fund.
"But judge..... they won't give me a scholarship if I can't play for them immediately."
It's true, my scenario only works in a world not run by clowns. Somehow being exceptionally athletic entitles you to whatever you want and rules shouldn't bother existing.
Yeah, that is definitely the argument. And based on how things have gone recently, I haven't heard a legitimate counter.
This is especially true if athletes become employees and/or union members- the argument that they shouldn't be subjected to an arbitrary time limit will be front and center for litigation.
⁸
This raises whole new anti-trust issues.
And I don't think the buyout could be high enough to make a difference. Buyouts are viewed as liquidated damages clauses, and to be enforceable they must be within the scope of the actual damages.
If you signed a player to 4 years at $1MM per year, what are your actual damages if he leaves after 1 year? You save $3MM that you can spend on another player...there are recruiting expenses and the like, and the uncertain cost of losing and having to replace a new player. But if the new school is paying over $1 MM per year for this guy, the buyout would be easy to overcome.
This raises whole new anti-trust issues.
And I don't think the buyout could be high enough to make a difference. Buyouts are viewed as liquidated damages clauses, and to be enforceable they must be within the scope of the actual damages.
If you signed a player to 4 years at $1MM per year, what are your actual damages if he leaves after 1 year? You save $3MM that you can spend on another player...there are recruiting expenses and the like, and the uncertain cost of losing and having to replace a new player. But if the new school is paying over $1 MM per year for this guy, the buyout would be easy to overcome.
Get unlimited access today.