NCAA makes change to limit Transfer Portal

#3
#3
I think it's a positive change. It will put some brakes on transfers.

If I understand it, one undergrad transfer and have immediate eligibility.
Then you can have another after graduation without sitting out a year as well.

It is still possible to have two transfers without having to sit out a year. Is that correct?
 
#5
#5
This is a terrible plan and I agree that it will fail judicial review. Run a good program and treat your athletes right then very few will leave except when looking for more playing time like Merrel and the Jimmies. These universities want the NCAA to place restrictions on the athletes because the universities can’t control themselves. Make a gentlemen’s agreement to not entice players from other teams with NIL deals. Refuse to tamper with players before they enter the portal.
 
#7
#7
Boo. Maybe we can restrict if you all quit jobs and go somewhere else. This isn't amateurism and hasn't been for decades
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mtnvol80
#9
#9
Yeah there shouldn’t be any rules regarding transfers right? Lol. The transfer portal has turned into a disaster quickly. And it’s only gonna get worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74
#14
#14
LouderVol said:
Until the players are ruled employees, and maybe even after, it's going to be real hard to say a voluntary organization cant rules regarding membership and level competition.
Click to expand...
Well, the Supreme Court was pretty adamant at 9-0 that restricting "educational benefits" by the NCAA was not okay, so who knows with this new Court.

But yeah, the coming "players are employees of the school" lawsuit makes the "players must sit out" lawsuit the least of the NCAA's problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#15
#15
So if you want to transfer to Tennessee, you go see a Tennessee Alum therapist the last month of the season. Bring a Spyre representative along too.
 
#18
#18
1world1love said:
That was before the NIL decision. As it is now, if you restrict transfers then you restrict earning potential. Again, there is no chance it sticks.
Click to expand...
Technically, NIL isn't and can't be related to field performance, so the NCAA will dig in there.

"We're not stopping you from profiting any more than Peyton is prevented from making money with NIL even though he isn't playing anymore."
 
#19
#19
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Technically, NIL isn't and can't be related to field performance, so the NCAA will dig in there.
Click to expand...

This isn't really true, technically or otherwise. The Alston ruling was actually pretty limited in scope and focused only on NCAA restrictions on "education-related benefits". It had nothing at all to do with NIL. If anything, the ruling seemed to endorse the ability of a University to pay a player anything that it could reasonably deem as related to the education of a student. According to the SCOTUS, a school should be allowed to pay a student 100k a year for a summer internship if it so chose.

The problem is that the Alston ruling set the table for declaring practically any restrictions on players as being in violation of the Sherman Act.

The changes to NIL were actually part of a movement to allow NIL by various state legislatures that has been going on for a while. But it became apparent after the Alston decision that the NCAA would be unable to enforce NIL rules at all, in any way, that limited athletes ability to benefit from NIL deals and so they essentially just gave up the fight on NIL knowing that they would lose again if anybody challenged it.

The rules that you are talking about were part of the new guidance released by the NCAA and its members. Those rules can only apply to the individuals schools and are also subject to state laws. So while member institutions "may be" prohibited from paying players or directing the payment of players, they cannot, in any way, interfere with players NIL deals.

The idea that it can't be related to on field performance is false. You may remember that one of our players had a deal that provided free cookies for every interception, or something like that. There are tons of deals that are based directly on an athletes performance.
 
#20
#20
1world1love said:
This isn't really true, technically or otherwise. The Alston ruling was actually pretty limited in scope and focused only on NCAA restrictions on "education-related benefits". It had nothing at all to do with NIL. If anything, the ruling seemed to endorse the ability of a University to pay a player anything that it could reasonably deem as related to the education of a student. According to the SCOTUS, a school should be allowed to pay a student 100k a year for a summer internship if it so chose.

The problem is that the Alston ruling set the table for declaring practically any restrictions on players as being in violation of the Sherman Act.

The changes to NIL were actually part of a movement to allow NIL by various state legislatures that has been going on for a while. But it became apparent after the Alston decision that the NCAA would be unable to enforce NIL rules at all, in any way, that limited athletes ability to benefit from NIL deals and so they essentially just gave up the fight on NIL knowing that they would lose again if anybody challenged it.

The rules that you are talking about were part of the new guidance released by the NCAA and its members. Those rules can only apply to the individuals schools and are also subject to state laws. So while member institutions "may be" prohibited from paying players or directing the payment of players, they cannot, in any way, interfere with players NIL deals.

The idea that it can't be related to on field performance is false. You may remember that one of our players had a deal that provided free cookies for every interception, or something like that. There are tons of deals that are based directly on an athletes performance.
Click to expand...
Agreed that the states are actually "the police" for NIL but that's true for every citizen. The NCAA can't enforce much related to NIL legally but they do make suggestions as you said. One of those suggestions, and I think most SEC states, prohibit "pay for performance" clauses in NIL deals.

As for the cookies, you're wrong. Taylor wasn't paid any more or less whether he intercepted a pass or not. There was no financial incentive in the NIL for him to perform, the fans received the benefit not Taylor for his performance. That's a big legal difference compared to coaching or pro player performance incentives for wins, interceptions, tackles, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1world1love
#21
#21
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Agreed that the states are actually "the police" for NIL but that's true for every citizen. The NCAA can't enforce much related to NIL legally but they do make suggestions as you said. One of those suggestions, and I think most SEC states, prohibit "pay for performance" clauses in NIL deals.

As for the cookies, you're wrong. Taylor wasn't paid any more or less whether he intercepted a pass or not. There was no financial incentive in the NIL for him to perform, the fans received the benefit not Taylor for his performance. That's a big legal difference compared to coaching or pro player performance incentives for wins, interceptions, tackles, etc.
Click to expand...

I see. That makes sense and clearly I misremembered that. It seems so long ago ;)

I think these types of prohibitions are not long for this world though. The SCOTUS has already set a precedence and if somebody wanted to challenge any of their guidelines (including transfers), they are unlikely to withstand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol and SayUWantAreVOLution
#22
#22
1world1love said:
I see. That makes sense and clearly I misremembered that. It seems so long ago ;)

I think these types of prohibitions are not long for this world though. The SCOTUS has already set a precedence and if somebody wanted to challenge any of their guidelines (including transfers), they are unlikely to withstand it.
Click to expand...
I agree and there's a lawsuit forming in CA saying athletes are employees and the NLRB is taking it up. It'll take a few years (I hope) to get through the courts but I don't think the NCAA will win.

That will turn college athletes into pro athletes..... and it will get bad for small schools who can't afford to run a pro club.
 
#23
#23
1world1love said:
Zero chance this withstands judicial scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I can’t see the court overruling NCAA on eligibility issues so long as they don’t discriminate. NIL is a whole other deal but every organization has to have some rules or regulations for eligibility. I may be wrong but just cause SCOTUS ruled NCAA couldn’t prevent people from making money doesn’t mean they’ve eliminated eligibility rules.
 
#24
#24
1world1love said:
That was before the NIL decision. As it is now, if you restrict transfers then you restrict earning potential. Again, there is no chance it sticks.
Click to expand...
The school isnt restricting their earning potential with the transfer restriction. The schools dont have anything to do with the NIL, and wouldnt be restricting them based on a new potential NIL. They would purely be restricting them on a "play" standpoint. Non compete clauses are a very valid thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74
#25
#25
LouderVol said:
The school isnt restricting their earning potential with the transfer restriction. The schools dont have anything to do with the NIL, and wouldnt be restricting them based on a new potential NIL. They would purely be restricting them on a "play" standpoint. Non compete clauses are a very valid thing.
Click to expand...

Not an expert in this area, but I believe there must be at least an IC relationship for a non compete to apply?? And that has been denied ad naseum by schools if I understand it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top