Court hearing scheduled on 2-time Transfer rule

[Pompous Elitist]

Yup. The courts could end college sports if they want to.
Then the only limitation would be collective bargaining

A sizable percentage across the spectrum genuinely believe anarchy is the best or fairest model. From a certain POV I suppose. Even non-thinking or non-reasoning animals seem to collectively regulate their societies for the greater good, however. We can probably do better, or worse. Things seem to evolve towards certain governance models, then back again. Some win, some lose. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[WAGopher]

More chaos sure, and I'm not a fan of that either. The restrictions however seem to be to be a clear "restraint of trade violation".

The NCAA member institutions have stated that the players are "Student-Athletes" not "Employees", thus without a Labor Agreement I don't see how it stands in court.

You may be right. However, I don’t think ‘student-athletes’ has ever been defined in a business sense. When they sign their scholarship agreement, they are accepting the trade of being on a team, with training and coaching in exchange for a free education. This used to be enough for most athletes, with some taking money, gifts and gratuities under the table. Now, with billions of dollars flowing to schools, more people want a piece of it, including the players.

I would think their is still enough in the exchange of services to warrant some restriction on players switching schools every year.

 

[MplsGopher]

I was only thinking about transfer waivers. Of course, the other medical and service waivers are needed.

You are right. These reasons I had mentioned I remembered from the Hardship Waiver process which is separate from a transfer waiver.

But those kinds of reasons could also be given, along with I assume most anything, to try to justify a transfer waiver.

We’re really talking about a waiver to be immediately eligible. Any athlete can transfer any time they want, any where they want. The question is if they can play immediately the next following season.

 

[MplsGopher]

Caught a little bit of Mason on DB yesterday.

He reiterated that the correct analogy in the NFL to what CFB is right now would be: all players are UFA, every year.

Can you imagine how absurd that would be???


So why are we allowing it in college?

If it takes new law, then new law is needed. And I think SCOTUS even can be reasonable enough to allow it.


As was aptly said earlier in the thread: it is not a right to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics while enrolled at a school. It is a privilege.

 

[MplsGopher]

This whole thing is an American oddity.

Every other country realizes that club teams is how it should be.

We’re the only ones that have this weird romantic obsession with school teams.

 

[Ope3]

One transfer yes. Two no, not without sitting out a year. You shouldn't be able to just go do whatever when you have scholarships and commitments in the school. It has to work both ways.

So the kids (who previously transferred) that Coach Prime told to take a hike in Colorado should be restricted by sitting out a year even though the feeling is mutual?

That's not an uncommon situation, it's just usually not filmed and shown on various media outlets.

 

[MplsGopher]

So the kids (who previously transferred) that Coach Prime told to take a hike in Colorado should be restricted by sitting out a year even though the feeling is mutual?

That's not an uncommon situation, it's just usually not filmed and shown on various media outlets.

As was pointed out by someone (I forgot who apologies) in a different thread, Prime took advantage of a special rule that allows a new coach in their first year, and only that year, to effectively kick anyone off the roster he wants.

That is a very obvious and very objective criteria: were you the “victim” of this rule or not?

If yes, that’s an easy exemption to grant. Done

 

[Ope3]

As was pointed out by someone (I forgot who apologies) in a different thread, Prime took advantage of a special rule that allows a new coach in their first year, and only that year, to effectively kick anyone off the roster he wants.

That is a very obvious and very objective criteria: were you the “victim” of this rule or not?

If yes, that’s an easy exemption to grant. Done

So there you go, any player in a program with a coaching change should be free to go elsewhere. For whatever reason, mutual agreement, different coaching philosophy, replaced players the new coach wants instead...victimized.

 

[MplsGopher]

Anyone is free to go anywhere, any time. There are no chains.

It’s a question of if you should get to play for the new school the immediate next season.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

what I want or what I like as a fan does not enter into a legal argument. Unless you can show that you, as a fan, have the legal standing to participate in the argument.

but the case in the OP, like the House anti-trust case in California, is about the legal rights of student-athletes. If I'm a hot-shot physics student, and I come up with a patent, I can market that patent however I wish. so a court of law might find that athletes under the law should not have restrictions imposed on them that would not be imposed on other students. in essence, the legal question is whether schools can single out athletes for restrictions.

the schools in one sense brought this on themselves. schools do not want student-athletes to be classified as employees. but, if they were employees, then you could have collective bargaining and legal rules governing the terms of employment. so by not wanting athletes to be employees, schools have helped to contribute to the current 'wild west' situation.

 

[Ope3]

Anyone is free to go anywhere, any time. There are no chains.

It’s a question of if you should get to play for the new school the immediate next season.

Understood, and my answer to the question is they should get to play immediately.

 

[MplsGopher]

Another objective way to deal with it, I believe credit to Some Guy or maybe others, is that any transfer (or any non-exempt transfer) simply increases your clock by one year but you aren’t immediately eligible.

You don’t lose eligibility overall, it’s just delayed by a year.

This would theoretically allow someone to be eligible up to nine calendar years in the extreme, and that’s with no hardship waivers further extending the clock.

For example;

Start - 5 to play 4
Year 1 - school A, redshirt, now 4 to play 4
-transfer to school B non-exempt back to 5 to play 4-
Year 2 - school B sit out, now 4 to play 4
Year 3 - play at school B, now 3 to play 3
-transfer to school C non-exempt back to 4 to play 3-
…
Year 9 - play at school E, now 0 to play 0

 

[MplsGopher]

Understood, and my answer to the question is they should get to play immediately.

If the new coach does not desire to kick you off the roster and wants you stay, you should not get an exemption.

I think we will fundamentally disagree on that.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

My understanding is that is a separate issue that is entirely to do with Covid

Players still have 5 years to play 4 seasons. It doesn’t count as one of your 4 if you play 4 games or fewer.

The only way to get a 6th year is medical redshirt.




The reason there are so many right now is because 2020 didn’t count for anyone’s 4 or for anyone’s 5

I was thinking it would be more like this:

Year 1. Red-shirt your true freshman year
Year 2. Play as a RS freshman
Year 3. Transfer and play immediately since it's first transfer (now you're a 3rd year soph at new school)
Year 4. Play as RS junior at new school
Year 5. Transfer and sit out one year
Year 6. In year 6 you are now playing your 4th year or football.

Now this goes against your statement of "5 years to play 4 seasons". I just assumed that if a second transfer required you to sit out a season, that that season wouldn't count. But I'm just speculating.

 

[MplsGopher]

in essence, the legal question is whether schools can single out athletes for restrictions.

It might take new law, but they should be allowed to.

Businesses can require NDA and non-competes be signed. Unions can force membership.

Time to treat it more like that.

 

[MplsGopher]

I was thinking it would be more like this:

Year 1. Red-shirt your true freshman year
Year 2. Play as a RS freshman
Year 3. Transfer and play immediately since it's first transfer (now you're a 3rd year soph at new school)
Year 4. Play as RS junior at new school
Year 5. Transfer and sit out one year
Year 6. In year 6 you are now playing your 4th year or football.

Now this goes against your statement of "5 years to play 4 seasons". I just assumed that if a second transfer required you to sit out a season, that that season wouldn't count. But I'm just speculating.

SG is claiming that Covid year was treated as if it never happened.

I think technically that is wrong, and rather the NCAA just gave everyone a free one-year clock extension no questions asked and did not count the year as a year of eligibility no questions asked.

Effectively the same thing

 

[GopherTheJugular]

I don’t.
playing sportsball is not a right. I think the any league has a right to set standards for participation for competitiveness and balance.
It’s just a matter of those violate the us constitution or labor laws

I agree. I'd actually feel more motivated to let them transfer and play right away if the school dropped their major, for example, than fired the coach. "student athlete" - the student part should be first.

 

[Ope3]

what I want or what I like as a fan does not enter into a legal argument. Unless you can show that you, as a fan, have the legal standing to participate in the argument.

but the case in the OP, like the House anti-trust case in California, is about the legal rights of student-athletes. If I'm a hot-shot physics student, and I come up with a patent, I can market that patent however I wish. so a court of law might find that athletes under the law should not have restrictions imposed on them that would not be imposed on other students. in essence, the legal question is whether schools can single out athletes for restrictions.

the schools in one sense brought this on themselves. schools do not want student-athletes to be classified as employees. but, if they were employees, then you could have collective bargaining and legal rules governing the terms of employment. so by not wanting athletes to be employees, schools have helped to contribute to the current 'wild west' situation.

Exactly. This what I was trying to convey by indicating that the member institutions brought this on themselves my maintaining the "amateur student-athlete" model while negotiating TV deals for millions, then tens of millions, then hundreds of millions and now billions of dollars.

 

[MplsGopher]

Well technically though, it was the conferences doing the TV stuff. Not the schools.

The schools can play it off like “well, great, I’m glad the Big Ten was able to secure a deal with FOX. We just want our fans to be able to watch our games. Oh sure, if the conference wants to send us a share of that money, we’ll take it and put it to good use enriching the student-athlete experience!”

 

[short ornery norwegian]

It might take new law, but they should be allowed to.

Businesses can require NDA and non-competes be signed. Unions can force membership.

Time to treat it more like that.

that's my point. are they "students" or are they employees of the school? schools and the NCAA can't have it both ways. and IMHO, schools would be better off in the long run if athletes were designated as employees. that could bring a lot more order to the current situation.

 

[MplsGopher]

that's my point. are they "students" or are they employees of the school? schools and the NCAA can't have it both ways.

They can. If they get the new law that they want

 

[Ope3]

If the new coach does not desire to kick you off the roster and wants you stay, you should not get an exemption.

I think we will fundamentally disagree on that.

And that's fine to have a reasonable disagreement.

Each case can have it's own nuance, but if there is a new HC with different position coaches/co-ordinator, support staff support staff etc, it's easy for me to make a case that's not what the player signed up for and should be free to go (and play right away).

 

[MplsGopher]

And that's fine to have a reasonable disagreement.

Each case can have it's own nuance, but if there is a new HC with different position coaches/co-ordinator, support staff support staff etc, it's easy for me to make a case that's not what the player signed up for and should be free to go (and play right away).

An NFL player doesn’t get to cancel their contract when the staff changes.

It should be (not is) like that.

 

[Ope3]

An NFL player doesn’t get to cancel their contract when the staff changes.

It should be (not is) like that.

But that's because in the NFL it's an occupation based on a signed contract (Employer/Employee) as part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

If the NCAA or if a new Super League has those things, then yeah by all means, more restrictions on player movement is well within reason.

 

[50PoundHead]

The court has insulted the NCAA's Wheel of Random Decisions.

Didn't that affect Marcus Carr negatively when he first transferred to Minnesota? Others in similar situations were granted waivers while he was not. I seem to recall it went that way, but I could be wrong.

 

[MplsGopher]

But that's because in the NFL it's an occupation based on a signed contract (Employer/Employee) as part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

If the NCAA or if a new Super League has those things, then yeah by all means, more restrictions on player movement is well within reason.

Those things should happen

 

[Pompous Elitist]

what I want or what I like as a fan does not enter into a legal argument. Unless you can show that you, as a fan, have the legal standing to participate in the argument.

but the case in the OP, like the House anti-trust case in California, is about the legal rights of student-athletes. If I'm a hot-shot physics student, and I come up with a patent, I can market that patent however I wish. so a court of law might find that athletes under the law should not have restrictions imposed on them that would not be imposed on other students. in essence, the legal question is whether schools can single out athletes for restrictions.

the schools in one sense brought this on themselves. schools do not want student-athletes to be classified as employees. but, if they were employees, then you could have collective bargaining and legal rules governing the terms of employment. so by not wanting athletes to be employees, schools have helped to contribute to the current 'wild west' situation.

In your example the student has already signed away their patent interests upon entrance to the school. The school might also make the argument the patent could not exist without their help, existence, or facilities and they have a defensible interest in all the rights (Tv network and conference arguments).

Unfortunately other “school” options for that player don’t really exist. He can order an online degree, or sign his interests away.

 

[howeda7]

Didn't that affect Marcus Carr negatively when he first transferred to Minnesota? Others in similar situations were granted waivers while he was not. I seem to recall it went that way, but I could be wrong.

Yes. His first year should have been 2019. That team would have been Sweet 16 caliber if he could have played.

 

[Denver_Gopher]

Someone, the NCAA, needs to get a handle on the portal and NIL. College football is going to be ruined.

 

[MplsGopher]

In your example the student has already signed away their patent interests upon entrance to the school. The school might also make the argument the patent could not exist without their help, existence, or facilities and they have a defensible interest in all the rights (Tv network and conference arguments).

Unfortunately other “school” options for that player don’t really exist. He can order an online degree, or sign his interests away.

Also, it's routine that the University automatically owns the rights to whatever PI's and their students invent during sponsored research.

Granted it could be some one-off, independent student inventing something ... but that's not at all the usual way that works in higher-ed research. The talented students are pursuing grad degrees and working for PI's who are funded by grants that they've won.