Pompous Elitist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 24,712
- Reaction score
- 8,535
- Points
- 113
My understanding is pretty much every NCAA rule violates the antitrust law, except where federal or state law allows.this is another case where Judges are ruling based solely on the issue of ability to earn NIL and ignoring reality.
players go to a Juco for two reasons:
1. their grades are not good enough to be admitted to a D1 school
2. their football-playing ability is not good enough to earn an offer from a D1 school
either way - both of those are the player's responsibility.
so the player is essentially saying: I was too stupid or not talented enough to go to a D1 out of HS. and that's not fair, so I should get my year or years of eligibility back.
it would be like someone who flunks their driver's test - and then sues because the lack of a driver's license is limiting their job opportunities, so they should be given a driver's license.
States regulate licensure of drivers, professionals, tradesmen in what I’d guess as an effort to protect the welfare of the general public. Fair to argue how necessary that should be.
Without twisting into a legal pretzel is it hard to argue limiting an athlete to 4 years is defensible in any legal way - if if restricts their ability to earn NIL, or restricts a team from signing them. Going further, I’d guess schools have leeway on admitting “problematic” GPAs (sub 2.0 anyone, anyone?) or SAT and many don’t require PJ’s nemesis, the standardized entrance exam, anymore. So the NCAA GPA, SAT requirements maybe don’t hold water.
We turn to our new congress to sagely weigh in on these matters, if they aren’t distracted. Surely this is the one issue they will all see eye to eye on.