Update to NCAA transfer rules on the horizon?
- Thread starter Mr Janny
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,215
- 29,567
- 113
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.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,215
- 29,567
- 113
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 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.
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.
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.
It's not hard to see how that would affect the values. It's not different than other contracts. There will be value in contracts where a player commits to vestage or payback if they leave that school. A booster would pay more for someone agreeing to those conditions.
As for the tuition, schools can easily put in requirements of at least maintaining a passing grade before they'll pay tuition, fees etc. It isn't a failsafe or prevent mid-season transfers, but it would provide a level of protection for schools if they are for some reason blocked from locking in scholarships on a yearly basis.
Nothing is clean, but all parties involved have some mechanisms and forces that this might get at least a tiny bit to a steady state.
If the players had collective bargaining, you could probably get some of these things. The commissioners can't "collude". They'd end up back in court.
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.
Now we're getting somewhere. Put those NIL salaries out in the open.
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.
But you're right, there is no longer any regulatory body for D1 sports, so any challenge will result in a loss for said body.
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.
