I'm happy to kick the NCAA in the shins whenever possible, but I don't think there's much they can do in this case. They've got multiple states involved in lawsuits against them, on this very issue. The courts have already granted an injunction, preventing them from restricting eligibility on transfers. They can continue to resist, but the writing is on the wall on this issue. If that's a retreat, so be it, but it's also just acknowledging reality.NCAA is in full retreat. This is the end of them as a governing force over athletes.
Meh. If punishing a kid for changing schools more than once is really the straw that broke the camel's back on college athletics, maybe it deserves to die. Something tells me that there will still be plenty of people watching in 5 years, though.It's all gonna be in shambles in 5 years or less.
I don't mean to say that's the straw but its pretty clear at this point the NCAA has no power. I will say I think there needs to be some kind of governing body that maintains competitive interests much like the professional leagues have otherwise it's just going to be a disgusting abuse of power.Meh. If punishing a kid for changing schools more than once is really the straw that broke the camel's back on college athletics, maybe it deserves to die. Something tells me that there will still be plenty of people watching in 5 years, though.
I'm not so sure about that. Guys get paid now and you can put guard rails in place as guys can get paid.I don't think the mid-year rule will last very long. All it will take is for an athlete to take the NCAA to court.
And it can be like pretty much everything else. The way things are heading there probably can just be people that develop pay for play contracts that do have conditions for playing for that season, more, less, however they want to do it.I'm happy to kick the NCAA in the shins whenever possible, but I don't think there's much they can do in this case. They've got multiple states involved in lawsuits against them, on this very issue. The courts have already granted an injunction, preventing them from restricting eligibility on transfers. They can continue to resist, but the writing is on the wall on this issue. If that's a retreat, so be it, but it's also just acknowledging reality.
I'm not so sure about that. Guys get paid now and you can put guard rails in place as guys can get paid.
What needs to happen, the league commissioners of Big Ten, Greg Sankey of SEC, and Brett Yormark need a sit down with the NCAA head. Figure it out with like:
- One time transfer max (I don't think transfers should be unlimited)
- (or if you transfer once and transfer again, then you sit out a year)
- Two year signing period out of high school
- Please for the love of god, one portal window in the summer or spring. Make it a two week opportunity.
It's critical for saving the college games of hoops and football. I truly believe that.
In addition to the eligibility decision, the NCAA DI Board passed new rules allowing universities to help athletes find NIL contracts. In exchange, athletes would be required to disclose any NIL deal of more than $600 to their schools.
While I love the idea of having checks and balances along with transparency, I fail to see any legal ground they could force this under. Unless the NIL sponsor is a publicly traded company, there is no legal obligation to disclose person to person or even private company to person contractual terms.Something I'm more interested in: https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...fers-school-assistance-for-nil-opportunities/
Now we're getting somewhere. Put those NIL salaries out in the open.
Well if they work for the university they are state employees, last I knew state employee salaries get published. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong and it doesn't matter to me.While I love the idea of having checks and balances along with transparency, I fail to see any legal ground they could force this under. Unless the NIL sponsor is a publicly traded company, there is no legal obligation to disclose person to person or even private company to person contractual terms.
We all want there to be more control and/or limitations, but all of these attempts will fall flat on their face with the slightest of legal challenge.
I think the difference here is that it specifies cases where the university itself is connecting the players to the donors, which puts it into the public realm with the player being a representative of the (assuming public) university. The school is acting in an official capacity in assisting the players' NIL.While I love the idea of having checks and balances along with transparency, I fail to see any legal ground they could force this under. Unless the NIL sponsor is a publicly traded company, there is no legal obligation to disclose person to person or even private company to person contractual terms.
We all want there to be more control and/or limitations, but all of these attempts will fall flat on their face with the slightest of legal challenge.
Sorry, I may have missed the part about this proposal including the switch to athletes being employees.Well if they work for the university they are state employees, last I knew state employee salaries get published. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong and it doesn't matter to me.
Sorry, I may have missed the part about this proposal including the switch to athletes being employees.
In that case, corporations (and therefore I would assume a school) could require contractual disclosures from their employees. But again, no P1 school is going to ever agree to putting a cap on that amount.