BREAKING NCAA votes to have a single transfer portal period

[colbysullivan]

Because the entire class / school isn’t affected if Bob or Susan decide to transfer. A regular student can quit mid-term and no one cares
Outside of maybe a lab partner. But if a starter on the team decides to quit, it directly impacts the entire team and to some degree, the school’s coffers.

“Well when was the last time 80 thousand people showed up to see a kid do a damn chemistry experiment?”

- The Program

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Because the entire class / school isn’t affected if Bob or Susan decide to transfer. A regular student can quit mid-term and no one cares
Outside of maybe a lab partner. But if a starter on the team decides to quit, it directly impacts the entire team and to some degree, the school’s coffers.

We agree that there is a difference in who and how many people are affected by the transfer of a scholarshipped athlete vs. a regular student. We agree that there should be a difference in rules around transfer.

My question is whether that difference in impact justifies legally-enforceable restriction in rules regarding transfer. Based only partially on the precedent of several years of essentially unlimited transfers for athletes, I don't think it does.

I'd love to be wrong.

But in today's structure, I just don't see where enforcing a year's absence from competition would stand up in court. Or that there will be a difference in legal enforceability for rules generated by this new CSC thing vs. those generated by the NCAA.

It would take (1) a literal act of Congress, or (2) a change in the fundamental structure of collegiate athletics, to make reform stand up in court.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

“Well when was the last time 80 thousand people showed up to see a kid do a damn chemistry experiment?”

- The Program

I should charge people to watch me design a building.

 

[mrusso]

We agree that there is a difference in who and how many people are affected by the transfer of a scholarshipped athlete vs. a regular student. We agree that there should be a difference in rules around transfer.

My question is whether that difference in impact justifies legally-enforceable restriction in rules regarding transfer. Based only partially on the precedent of several years of essentially unlimited transfers for athletes, I don't think it does.

I'd love to be wrong.

But in today's structure, I just don't see where enforcing a year's absence from competition would stand up in court. Or that there will be a difference in legal enforceability for rules generated by this new CSC thing vs. those generated by the NCAA.

It would take (1) a literal act of Congress, or (2) a change in the fundamental structure of collegiate athletics, to make reform stand up in court.

There are rules or policies in place for almost everything we do. Whether a workplace or a student in college, you go there with an understanding of what these "rules" are. That is your choice, don't like them, don't accept them and don't go. Student athletes receive benefits that other students don't. I'm talking about school sponsored benefits like nutrition and workout facilities, television exposure to display your talents (for moving on to the next level), etc. Nobody makes an athlete go to a particular school. If the rules state that you can't transfer anytime you want, and you don't like that stipulation, then don't accept the offer to go there.

 

[crimsonaudio]

We agree that there is a difference in who and how many people are affected by the transfer of a scholarshipped athlete vs. a regular student. We agree that there should be a difference in rules around transfer.

My question is whether that difference in impact justifies legally-enforceable restriction in rules regarding transfer. Based only partially on the precedent of several years of essentially unlimited transfers for athletes, I don't think it does.

I'd love to be wrong.

But in today's structure, I just don't see where enforcing a year's absence from competition would stand up in court. Or that there will be a difference in legal enforceability for rules generated by this new CSC thing vs. those generated by the NCAA.

It would take (1) a literal act of Congress, or (2) a change in the fundamental structure of collegiate athletics, to make reform stand up in court.

It's yet another reason as to why we need a collegiate player's association, much like the NFL. You have to be part of it to play the game and you have to abide by the agreed upon rules.

I hate the idea of a player's association but the cows are long out of the barn on this one.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

It's yet another reason as to why we need a collegiate player's association, much like the NFL. You have to be part of it to play the game and you have to abide by the agreed upon rules.

I hate the idea of a player's association but the cows are long out of the barn on this one.

Totally agree!

If the players are paid professionals, we should have the same rules/guidelines as the professionals...

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Totally agree!

If the players are paid professionals, we should have the same rules/guidelines as the professionals...

They should be fined like NFL players too. Like if a player, oh I don't know, spits on another player.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

They should be fined like NFL players too. Like if a player, oh I don't know, spits on another player.

Great point!!!

Fines should be part of the game now since they are getting paid!

 

[4Q Basket Case]

It's yet another reason as to why we need a collegiate player's association, much like the NFL. You have to be part of it to play the game and you have to abide by the agreed upon rules.

I hate the idea of a player's association but the cows are long out of the barn on this one.

10,000% agreed. I just didn’t want to post “CBA / Union / Management,” for the gazillionth time.

 

[CoolBreeze]

“Well when was the last time 80 thousand people showed up to see a kid do a damn chemistry experiment?”

- The Program

That is happening this weekend. Hopefully the chemistry is all good lol.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

There are rules or policies in place for almost everything we do. Whether a workplace or a student in college, you go there with an understanding of what these "rules" are. That is your choice, don't like them, don't accept them and don't go. Student athletes receive benefits that other students don't. I'm talking about school sponsored benefits like nutrition and workout facilities, television exposure to display your talents (for moving on to the next level), etc. Nobody makes an athlete go to a particular school. If the rules state that you can't transfer anytime you want, and you don't like that stipulation, then don't accept the offer to go there.

Conceptually, I don’t disagree with anything you say.

However, I see two real-world problems. First, if a school puts all that in its NIL contracts, they’ll never sign a player.

Second, absent Congressional action or a specific legal construct, a bunch of schools getting together with common contractual provisions is going to get struck down on grounds of anti-trust or collusion — which is exactly why the NCAA no longer exists as a rule-making entity.

I don’t like the current chaos. But the days of saying, “These are the rules. Take it or leave it,” are as gone as the T-Rex.

Whatever the solution is, has to stand up in court. I don’t know of any that would solve the problem and hold up to legal challenge outside of Congress or a CBA.

 

[CB4]

We agree that there is a difference in who and how many people are affected by the transfer of a scholarshipped athlete vs. a regular student. We agree that there should be a difference in rules around transfer.

My question is whether that difference in impact justifies legally-enforceable restriction in rules regarding transfer. Based only partially on the precedent of several years of essentially unlimited transfers for athletes, I don't think it does.

I'd love to be wrong.

But in today's structure, I just don't see where enforcing a year's absence from competition would stand up in court. Or that there will be a difference in legal enforceability for rules generated by this new CSC thing vs. those generated by the NCAA.

It would take (1) a literal act of Congress, or (2) a change in the fundamental structure of collegiate athletics, to make reform stand up in court.

I hate to say this, but with the way court decisions have gone recently, I don’t see how a restriction on transfer will hold up. Courts have basically said universities cannot stand in the way of an individual’s ability to earn based on name, image and likeness. Everything that is considered a barrier to student athlete monetizing/capitalizing on NIL is almost a non starter now by the courts. We have already had situations with student athletes being granted extra years of eligibility because limitations on eligibility by the NCAA was seen as arbitrary and capricious by the courts.

As mentioned in an early post, I doubt seriously the courts (without binding bargaining agreement and strict contractual obligations by all parties) would restrict free transfer at anytime. If the non student athlete can withdraw mid term and transfer to another institution, why would the courts prevent a student athlete from doing the same? It would seem to “fly in the face” of every ruling the courts have made thus far. As in the case with the Wisconsin player, the NCAA ruled once he had withdrawn from Wisconsin, he was no longer considered a student athlete and was free to transfer to Miami, therefore bypassing the portal window completely. If the NCAA is feckless (which they are) when enforcing its own rules, why should we expect the courts to enforce the NCAA limitations for them?

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

Not exactly about transfers, but the whole NIL can of worms resulted in this whole mess.

Probably should have posted this in another thread, but I'm going to say it here anyways.

I think the courts need to define what exactly NIL means.

Arch seems to be the only legitimate example of what it was intended to mean...

 

[75thru79]

I should charge people to watch me design a building.

So you're like the Brady Bunch dad? Cool.

 

[JDCrimson]

They are. There are several schools that have implemented a fine structure to enforce discipline.

Great point!!!

Fines should be part of the game now since they are getting paid!

 

[bravo6]

This is how i would do it.

School A and School B are playing for the NC. If I'm school B, I'm going after the 2nd string backups for school A to try to get them out for the game...

Why not go for 1st string?