Bob_Loblaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 21,225
- Reaction score
- 17,302
- Points
- 113
I don't think it would be legal for the NCAA to do it because it would be deemed an unreasonable restraint on trade and thus a violation of the Sherman Act.Interesting insight. Question: Would it be legal for the NCAA to reinstate the one year sit out transfer rule? In my opinion, this is what ruins it. College players have more freedom than professional players. Forcing an athlete to sit out an entire year if they want to transfer would obviously cut down on transfers by about 90%, along with the five to play four rule (which I’m not even sure is still in place or is at the very least being challenged)?
It could be something that is contractually negotiated and then mandated, but because of Title IX, those types of contracts are impossible.
I'm not 100% sure that if an athlete argued against the 5 to play 4 rule OR even the maximum of 4 years of eligibility rule that courts would not deem those as unreasonable restraints on trade. I know that sounds crazy and maybe I'm being doom and gloom. However, put it this way, if MN or insurance companies decided that you are only allowed to be dentist for 10 years, that would 100% be an unreasonable restraint on trade.
You can restrain trade, it just has to be reasonable. As of now, I haven't seen any ruling by any court to make me think things like "tradition of college sports" as a reasonable justification.