Court hearing scheduled on 2-time Transfer rule

Donate To GopherHole

howeda7 said:
The court has insulted the NCAA's Wheel of Random Decisions.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the point. The seeming inconsistency and unfairness of the waiver grant/denial process is the problem being addressed at this point. Judge could rule that there can't be any restraints on 2nd transfers; but also could rule that restraints on second transfers are just fine so long as applied equally across the board with no seemingly inconsistent waivers of the restraint. I'm sure the NCAA would prefer the latter. It would keep the helmet schools from bugging them for special treatment. Then the appeal process will start.
 

Riddle me this:

the claim is essentially being made here that if a player transfers to a new school but has to sit out a year (per NCAA rule), that is a restraint on selling his NIL rights.


But how can that be true?? The player can sell his NIL rights. There is no rule against that, while you're sitting out. (I don't think??) You just can't play during that year, is all.


So what this proves is: NIL has little or no value unless you're playing for the (new) school. In other words, these players have little or no value in their name, image, or likeness in of itself, by itself. They only obtain value when it is derived from the value already associated with the school/team.

💡💡💡💡
 

^^^ this is the exact opposite of, say, Pat Mahomes.

His NIL has (tremendous) value, in of itself. It doesn't really matter that he plays for the Chiefs. It would have at least as much value playing for any team, and probably still if he stopped playing.

Exact opposite of college players. With very few exceptions.
 

MplsGopher said:
^^^ this is the exact opposite of, say, Pat Mahomes.

His NIL has (tremendous) value, in of itself. It doesn't really matter that he plays for the Chiefs. It would have at least as much value playing for any team, and probably still if he stopped playing.

Exact opposite of college players. With very few exceptions.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but that's been earned over years of hard work and success. Just like Peyton Manning still has tremendous value as a pitchman years after retirement. Nobody would expect a young player just starting out to have that kind of NIL value across the board, with a few unique exceptions.
 


I would say that NIL is earned by playing at college and NFL. Mahomes earned NIL by playing and winning a Super Bowl. Now everyone knows who he is. That is why they say that the NIL is going to about the top 4% of athletes who actually see the field. So if you transfer and have to sit out a year it's hard for collectives to justify any $$ to you until you're a more known commodity.

NIL should come from playing and being one of the best on the team. That's why schools that give $$ to HS kids to come in are just wasting money IMO. If they transfer or don't pan out, it's wasted. MN seems to be doing it the right way. Earn your NIL by performing.
 

MplsGopher said:
^^^ this is the exact opposite of, say, Pat Mahomes.

His NIL has (tremendous) value, in of itself. It doesn't really matter that he plays for the Chiefs. It would have at least as much value playing for any team, and probably still if he stopped playing.

Exact opposite of college players. With very few exceptions.
Click to expand...
If no one knows who you are your NIL has little to no value. 99% are basically being paid to boost the NIL of the school they attend, they have no individual recognition. That’s why collectives pay them for doing nothing.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I would say that NIL is earned by playing at college and NFL. Mahomes earned NIL by playing and winning a Super Bowl. Now everyone knows who he is. That is why they say that the NIL is going to about the top 4% of athletes who actually see the field. So if you transfer and have to sit out a year it's hard for collectives to justify any $$ to you until you're a more known commodity.

NIL should come from playing and being one of the best on the team. That's why schools that give $$ to HS kids to come in are just wasting money IMO. If they transfer or don't pan out, it's wasted. MN seems to be doing it the right way. Earn your NIL by performing.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. There are countless youtube/social media people that make a lot of money. They earned the ability to make money off of their name/image/likeness simply by generating clicks.

That buzz can come from playing good football but it can also come from just generating clicks (Tate Martell).
 

Whatever. I just have no faith that anything can or will be done to correct college athletics.
 



MplsGopher said:
Riddle me this:

the claim is essentially being made here that if a player transfers to a new school but has to sit out a year (per NCAA rule), that is a restraint on selling his NIL rights.


But how can that be true?? The player can sell his NIL rights. There is no rule against that, while you're sitting out. (I don't think??) You just can't play during that year, is all.


So what this proves is: NIL has little or no value unless you're playing for the (new) school. In other words, these players have little or no value in their name, image, or likeness in of itself, by itself. They only obtain value when it is derived from the value already associated with the school/team.

💡💡💡💡
Click to expand...
We clearly know this isn't true with how much money recruits out of HS are getting before ever playing a down in college.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Yes, this is the point. The seeming inconsistency and unfairness of the waiver grant/denial process is the problem being addressed at this point. Judge could rule that there can't be any restraints on 2nd transfers; but also could rule that restraints on second transfers are just fine so long as applied equally across the board with no seemingly inconsistent waivers of the restraint. I'm sure the NCAA would prefer the latter. It would keep the helmet schools from bugging them for special treatment. Then the appeal process will start.
Click to expand...
It's actually pretty consistent if you think about it. If you're a blue blood, it'll be approved. If you're not, denied.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I would say that NIL is earned by playing at college and NFL. Mahomes earned NIL by playing and winning a Super Bowl. Now everyone knows who he is. That is why they say that the NIL is going to about the top 4% of athletes who actually see the field. So if you transfer and have to sit out a year it's hard for collectives to justify any $$ to you until you're a more known commodity.

NIL should come from playing and being one of the best on the team. That's why schools that give $$ to HS kids to come in are just wasting money IMO. If they transfer or don't pan out, it's wasted. MN seems to be doing it the right way. Earn your NIL by performing.
Click to expand...
My theory is that NIL will normalize around proven players after a few more years. Yes, some of the top 5 star HS recruits might pen some NIL deals, but I think they will be smaller than we are seeing now.

Why do I think this? Well, I think the people ponying up the money will start to get tired of paying HS recruits who underperform, and are beaten out by less highly rated teammates who didn't get NIL. If the player you gave a huge NIL deal never sees the field, your ROI on that is terrible. Obviously there are some folks who don't actually care about their ROI, they just want the recruit to go to or stay at whatever school, but I think in the long run that's where things settle for a majority of NIL.
 

MN AG has jumped on the lawsuit.
 



MaxyJR1 said:
MN AG has jumped on the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2024/01/19_NCAA.asp

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice in filing an antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s transfer-eligibility rule as an illegal restraint on college athletes’ ability to sell their own image and likeness and control their own education.

“Banning athletes from competing for a year after they transfer schools a second time is arbitrary, unjust, and in my opinion, illegal,” said Attorney General Ellison. “I am proud to be standing up for student athletes and fighting the NCAA’s senseless restriction on their ability to compete.”

Attorney General Ellison and the coalition are challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s requirement that college athletes who transfer a second time among Division I schools wait one year before competing in games.

The NCAA began automatically exempting first-time transfers from the regulation in 2021 but has continued to enforce the rule for subsequent transfers. It has denied waivers inconsistently and often without legitimate reasons.

In justifying the one-year waiting period for second-time transfers, the NCAA cites the promotion of academic well-being and the preservation of athletic amateurism. But in the lawsuit, Attorney General Ellison and the coalition call the connection between the rule and these goals “pretextual,” note that these purported goals can be accomplished through less-restrictive means, and argue that the harm it does to athletes, universities, and fans far exceeds any supposed benefits.


(Emphasis added is my own)

Ellison said the quiet part out loud. Oops! He let the real game be known.

This has absolutely nothing to do with athletes. They're doing it because the big schools are demanding it. They want to be able to pluck whomever they want, whenever they want. And probably not the least because they fear what will happen if they can't, not necessarily just because they want to go down this road.


What a farce.

Get ready for four schools in four years to be the norm. Gross
 

Why can't you transfer in the middle of the season?????

Why can't I keep playing for 15 years, so long as I keep enrolling in new undergraduate programs at new schools??? I'm still in school, in good standing!!


It's all on the table for lawsuits, now.
 
Last edited:

Taji34 said:
My theory is that NIL will normalize around proven players after a few more years. Yes, some of the top 5 star HS recruits might pen some NIL deals, but I think they will be smaller than we are seeing now.

Why do I think this? Well, I think the people ponying up the money will start to get tired of paying HS recruits who underperform, and are beaten out by less highly rated teammates who didn't get NIL. If the player you gave a huge NIL deal never sees the field, your ROI on that is terrible. Obviously there are some folks who don't actually care about their ROI, they just want the recruit to go to or stay at whatever school, but I think in the long run that's where things settle for a majority of NIL.
Click to expand...
This would be true. And can still prove true for "special" deals that top players have been able to get on their own. That I buy.

One small (major) problem with you say applying generally, across the board: collectives.


Collectives are nothing more than a giant payola scheme to act as a defacto payroll for the entire (or good chunk of) roster. I doubt there is anything in those contracts that are dictated by performance, directly. Coaching staff says (through backchannels, hush hush, of course) "this guy needs this much, this guy needs this much" and it magically works out that way.


Point is this: collectives completely decouple the donation from it going to any specific player. You're just donating to the collective now, they'll take good care of your money. You won't know which dollar went to which kid, and you don't need to know that! You just keep the donations coming, and supporting the team, thank you very much!
 

disco said:
Well, yes, but that's been earned over years of hard work and success. Just like Peyton Manning still has tremendous value as a pitchman years after retirement. Nobody would expect a young player just starting out to have that kind of NIL value across the board, with a few unique exceptions.
Click to expand...
Sure.

This just reinforces what I've said. If you're a relative nobody, you're saying that your NIL value is being hampered by not being allowed to play at the new school.

So you haven't gotten that value yet. It's just hypothetical, on paper value that could happen if/when you play well at the new schools.

Therefore, they can't be restraining you from selling something, if you don't have that thing yet.


That's how I'd attack it.


But the outcome has already been predetermined. That's why AG's are jumping on the bandwagon, to make sure they come out on the good/popular side of the outcome. This is being driven by the helmet schools. Free-for-all, laissez-faire chaos doesn't hurt them, it helps them.
 

I can only assume that Keith will be suing the MSHSL about their transfer rules as well now
 

a lot of this is on the NCAA for having a waiver policy that is mysterious, inconsistent and cannot or will not explain itself.

if the NCAA would have said "no waivers for any reason," there might still have been a challenge, but at least the NCAA would have been on a better footing to answer the challenge. as it is, the NCAA is stuck trying to defend a policy that no one likes and no one understands.

as it is, I suspect we are going to wind up with unlimited transfers being the rule. start watching to see which player sets a record by playing at 5 schools in 5 years (counting a red-shirt year) or 6 schools in 6 years (adding a medical red-shirt).
 

short ornery norwegian said:
as it is, I suspect we are going to wind up with unlimited transfers being the rule.
Click to expand...
Of course it will.

The NCAA could try to rejigger the rule to fix it, but they won't. They're getting sick and tired of ending up in court defending perfectly good, common sense rules. They're just going to say "you know, F it, I don't need this S. Go do whatever the F you like. Go ruin the product. We have schools that actually want and need us to care about."
 

MplsGopher said:
Of course it will.

The NCAA could try to rejigger the rule to fix it, but they won't. They're getting sick and tired of ending up in court defending perfectly good, common sense rules. They're just going to say "you know, F it, I don't need this S. Go do whatever the F you like. Go ruin the product. We have schools that actually want and need us to care about."
Click to expand...
No, the correct answer is the NCAA screwed it up by keeping the draconian Amateur Student Athletes rules for decades after it was reaping tens of millions, then hundreds of millions now billions of TV revenue and other sources.

Could have all been taken care of generations ago by acknowledging that that the are employees with set standards of work rules.
 

Ope3 said:
No, the correct answer is the NCAA screwed it up by keeping the draconian Amateur Student Athletes rules for decades after it was reaping tens of millions, then hundreds of millions now billions of TV revenue and other sources.

Could have all been taken care of generations ago by acknowledging that that the are employees with set standards of work rules.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with this.

But no chance the powers would be would have ever allowed that to happen. Way too scared that people only care about major college sports, as opposed to Triple A MiLB/G-League/AHL, because its "amateurs". Just like with the Olympics. Yep, definitely "amateurs" in both cases.
 

MplsGopher said:
I mostly agree with this.

But no chance the powers would be would have ever allowed that to happen. Way too scared that people only care about major college sports, as opposed to Triple A MiLB/G-League/AHL, because its "amateurs". Just like with the Olympics. Yep, definitely "amateurs" in both cases.
Click to expand...
Decades ago, I think you're correct, the powers in charge wouldn't go for full scale changes.

What "should" have happened though when the money started escalating (as far back as the 80s) were small incremental changes, that would have eventually evolved into more of a workable labor situation.

Instead the NCAA stonewalled as much as possible. Now the courts are forcing their hand.
 

Ed O'Bannon just wanted to get some money.

Brought the whole thing down. Thanks Ed
 

MplsGopher said:
Ed O'Bannon just wanted to get some money.

Brought the whole thing down. Thanks Ed
Click to expand...
NCAA hubris. If not Ed, it would have happened by now.

Non-sequitor, in 1996 the Julio Cesar Chavez vs Oscar De La Hoya title match took place in Vegas. Instead of home pay-per-view, the promoters went old school "closed circuit". To watch the fight had to pay admission in theaters, clubs and other sports arenas to watch on a big screen.

I paid whatever, think $40 to watch it at the Rose Bowl. Oscar won via TKO. On my way out into parking lot, within a couple of cars was Ed O'Bannon and his brother Charles, also a Bruin.

In a crowd of more than 30,000, we may have been the only non-hispanics there. Only very slight hyperbole. The evening was quite a spectacle.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
A district court judge is holding a hearing this month on the NCAA rule dealing with athletes who transfer more than once.

from the AP:

College athletes who were denied the chance to play immediately after transferring a second time can return to competition, for now, after a federal judge issued a 14-day temporary restraining order Wednesday against the NCAA.

U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey in northern West Virginia issued the order against the NCAA from enforcing the transfer rule. A lawsuit filed by West Virginia and six other states alleged the rule's waiver process violated federal antitrust law.

A hearing on the restraining order is scheduled for Dec. 27, Bailey said.

The NCAA didn't immediately indicate whether it would appeal the ruling.

NCAA rules allow underclassmen to transfer once without having to sit out a year. But an additional transfer as an undergraduate generally requires the NCAA to grant a waiver allowing the athlete to compete immediately. Without it, the athlete would have to sit out for a year at the new school.

Last January, the NCAA implemented stricter guidelines for granting those waivers on a case-by-case basis.

The states involved in seeking the restraining order were Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.

It wasn't immediately clear whether any of the affected players would try to compete during the 14-day window and what ramifications they could face if the NCAA would eventually prevail in the lawsuit.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement the ruling ''paves the way for student athletes, like RaeQuan Battle, to play in the sport they love and continue improving themselves.''

''We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.

The lawsuit alleged requiring athletes to sit can mean lost potential earnings from endorsement deals with their name, image and likeness (NIL) or professional careers. It pointed to exposure from competing in national broadcasts, noting: ''One game can take a college athlete from a local fan favorite to a household name.''
Click to expand...
Typical of the federal courts: destroy community discipline because an aggrieved individual or group of aggrieved individuals don't like a rule or practice. Goes all the way back to Madalyn Murray O'Hair 60 years ago.
 

Ope3 said:
No, the correct answer is the NCAA screwed it up by keeping the draconian Amateur Student Athletes rules for decades after it was reaping tens of millions, then hundreds of millions now billions of TV revenue and other sources.

Could have all been taken care of generations ago by acknowledging that that the are employees with set standards of work rules.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree with this at all,I am not sure our current state is at all avoidable. In DC, there is a statutory ban on all non-compete agreements for employees. In other states, it's getting more and more difficult to enforce any kind of non-compete agreement on any employee.

I love college football and basketball, but the truth is that it is a weird pairing - learning institution and big money athletics. They don't really have that much to do with each other (you can be great at football and a good person but not be a good student).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
While I don't disagree with this at all,I am not sure our current state is at all avoidable. In DC, there is a statutory ban on all non-compete agreements for employees. In other states, it's getting more and more difficult to enforce any kind of non-compete agreement on any employee.

I love college football and basketball, but the truth is that it is a weird pairing - learning institution and big money athletics. They don't really have that much to do with each other (you can be great at football and a good person but not be a good student).
Click to expand...
Does a Collective Bargaining Agreement take priority over a Non-Compete Agreement?
 

Ope3 said:
Does a Collective Bargaining Agreement take priority over a Non-Compete Agreement?
Click to expand...
It would but that would require all of the schools to be seen as 1 large company.

Take the NFL, each team is a franchise. So the players collectively bargain with the NFL and those rules dictate the rules for each of its franchises. It'd be like negotiating with McDonalds and those negotiations impacting each of its stores (franchises).

It's not a neat fit for college sports because the U of Michigan isn't just a franchise of the NCAA.

You could envision some sort of "league" created in the post-NCAA world where the major college football teams are essentially a minor professional team but then their affiliations with the schools would have to be much looser - something like "these are the Wolverines sponsored by the U of Michigan".

Now, those actual negotiations would be insane. The players would be in a weird spot because the entire "workforce" gets replaced every 4 years.
 

MplsGopher said:
Riddle me this:

the claim is essentially being made here that if a player transfers to a new school but has to sit out a year (per NCAA rule), that is a restraint on selling his NIL rights.


But how can that be true?? The player can sell his NIL rights. There is no rule against that, while you're sitting out. (I don't think??) You just can't play during that year, is all.


So what this proves is: NIL has little or no value unless you're playing for the (new) school. In other words, these players have little or no value in their name, image, or likeness in of itself, by itself. They only obtain value when it is derived from the value already associated with the school/team.

💡💡💡💡
Click to expand...
This is probably the best post I've seen in a while. I have been saying this since way before NIL. My example was that even though Johnny Football left A&M and Jameis Winston left FSU, fans continued to attend and watch those teams' games on TV.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom