Transfer portal

[Dave H]

How do you legally stop someone who wants to be a professional student-athlete from doing that for 20 years? Just keep getting new bachelor's degree after another. In good academic standing. School wants them, team wants them. What's the legal basis??

The same legal basis that allows for leagues to set rules of how much experience you need to even enter.

A school can decide who is and who is not going to play for them. Courts can't force the U of M to accept a player, give them a scholarship and play them. (except in rather extreme circumstances) Same with the Big Ten, they can regulate eligibility however they choose as long as it doesn't run afoul of specific rules either set by the NCAAs or the government. (who is not going to waste time setting up laws on this) The Courts dont have the authority to force the issue.

Put it this way the Courts could say "there is no restriction under the law that says players are only eligible for so many years" but that doesn't mean the Big Ten has to let players play for all those years. (especially when those players would have other avenues like other conferences or lower levels of play not to mention the NFL) The Big Ten could easily set up eligibility guidelines that set about to say what the requirements are to be a Big Ten player. (whether they would do that is another story) If players don't like it they dont have to play in the Big Ten. Being an athlete is not some protected class and it never will be.

 

[50PoundHead]

The same legal basis that allows for leagues to set rules of how much experience you need to even enter.

A school can decide who is and who is not going to play for them. Courts can't force the U of M to accept a player, give them a scholarship and play them. (except in rather extreme circumstances) Same with the Big Ten, they can regulate eligibility however they choose as long as it doesn't run afoul of specific rules either set by the NCAAs or the government. (who is not going to waste time setting up laws on this) The Courts dont have the authority to force the issue.

Put it this way the Courts could say "there is no restriction under the law that says players are only eligible for so many years" but that doesn't mean the Big Ten has to let players play for all those years. (especially when those players would have other avenues like other conferences or lower levels of play not to mention the NFL) The Big Ten could easily set up eligibility guidelines that set about to say what the requirements are to be a Big Ten player. (whether they would do that is another story) If players don't like it they dont have to play in the Big Ten. Being an athlete is not some protected class and it never will be.

All very true, but do you think if the SEC simply says "No eligibility limits!" that the Big Ten won't follow due to the competition for revenue? You inserted the qualifying statement, but I just think once the first domino falls regarding eligibility limits, the rest will fall as a result. I think we are really on our way to where colleges basically host minor league football without professional franchises attached to particular programs.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The same legal basis that allows for leagues to set rules of how much experience you need to even enter.

A school can decide who is and who is not going to play for them. Courts can't force the U of M to accept a player, give them a scholarship and play them. (except in rather extreme circumstances) Same with the Big Ten, they can regulate eligibility however they choose as long as it doesn't run afoul of specific rules either set by the NCAAs or the government. (who is not going to waste time setting up laws on this) The Courts dont have the authority to force the issue.

Put it this way the Courts could say "there is no restriction under the law that says players are only eligible for so many years" but that doesn't mean the Big Ten has to let players play for all those years. (especially when those players would have other avenues like other conferences or lower levels of play not to mention the NFL) The Big Ten could easily set up eligibility guidelines that set about to say what the requirements are to be a Big Ten player. (whether they would do that is another story) If players don't like it they dont have to play in the Big Ten. Being an athlete is not some protected class and it never will be.

IMO, I think you have it backwards a little.

The courts are saying that the NCAA can impose whatever rules they want as long as those rules aren't an undue restraint on trade. So while the courts cannot force the U to give anyone a scholarship, they can certainly punish the U/Big Ten/NCAA for having a rule that is an undue restraint on trade. Take the JuCo transfer at Vandy - - the courts aren't forcing people to sign JuCo players. The antitrust analysis has nothing to do with the players being a protected class or not.

The question before the courts likely will be whether or not limiting eligibility to 4/5 years is an undue restraint on trade. I really do hope I'm wrong, but I have an opinion on where the courts will come out on that analysis.

 

[Dave H]

I dont pretend to be an attorney, and I honestly dont care enough to know what the cases are before the court at this time. I was more speaking in a hypothetical manner not about what is actually going to happen so I will definitely take your word on it for the specifics.

If the courts decide that eligibility caps (like 4/5 years of playing clock) are a restraint on trade than the NCAA is dead. In fact, honestly, you could say that much of the American model of non professional sports is in trouble. Junior Hockey like the USHL has restrictions on the age players can play until, they would lose that if challenged. If there is no age or eligibility restrictions on college that means overagers can come in and play so if a 24 year old wants to keep playing for the Sioux Falls Stampede in hopes that say the Gophers might pick him up to fill a roster spot (and he can get some NIL cash!!) who is the USHL to stop him right? Rulings such as that would be highly problematic and the Law of Unintended Consequences would rear its ugly head most likely. (again I am spitballing based on what you said I am not pretending to know anything about anything just thinking out loud because you piqued my interest)

I won't lie, if I didn't love the Gophers so much I would pretty much never watch college sports anymore and stuff like we are discussing here is a big part of it. Not because I don't want players making money, I absolutely do. And I am for open transfers once (twice if you are a grad) but unlimited seems nuts. It just seems like whatever this is now, and whatever it is likely to become in the near future, just isn't what I was watching the game for. I am not trying to pretend that college sports was pure back in my day or anything because I know way better than that. But whatever this is...its a joke. And the more rules that get taken away, the worse it gets. Unrestricted FA every year for every player is untenable and you throw in uncapped ability to compensate players with no way to stop any real pay for play or tampering is just ridiculous. If you get rid of eligibility caps what are we even doing here?

(sorry long rant which mostly wasnt on topic, I appreciated your insight)

 

[WoodburyTim]

So now that we are going to pay players to play a game, I think the question is very important that a lot of non-sports people are asking. Why are we giving free school to people that make twice as much money as the average person? I don’t know how to answer that. Suggestions would be welcome.

 

[GopherGrit]

The same legal basis that allows for leagues to set rules of how much experience you need to even enter.

A school can decide who is and who is not going to play for them. Courts can't force the U of M to accept a player, give them a scholarship and play them. (except in rather extreme circumstances) Same with the Big Ten, they can regulate eligibility however they choose as long as it doesn't run afoul of specific rules either set by the NCAAs or the government. (who is not going to waste time setting up laws on this) The Courts dont have the authority to force the issue.

Put it this way the Courts could say "there is no restriction under the law that says players are only eligible for so many years" but that doesn't mean the Big Ten has to let players play for all those years. (especially when those players would have other avenues like other conferences or lower levels of play not to mention the NFL) The Big Ten could easily set up eligibility guidelines that set about to say what the requirements are to be a Big Ten player. (whether they would do that is another story) If players don't like it they dont have to play in the Big Ten. Being an athlete is not some protected class and it never will be.

I like everything you said here!

But I see a potential (depending on how you look at it) fly in the ointment:

what happens when SEC schools do allow it? (Unlimited eligibility, so long as the school determines the athlete continues to be in good academic standing.)


You could say something like "well, if that's the case then the Big Ten just shouldn't play the SEC or we'll just have to accept that there are bridges we won't cross and accept the consequences", and I would agree with you if that's what you say.

 

[GopherGrit]

All very true, but do you think if the SEC simply says "No eligibility limits!" that the Big Ten won't follow due to the competition for revenue? You inserted the qualifying statement, but I just think once the first domino falls regarding eligibility limits, the rest will fall as a result. I think we are really on our way to where colleges basically host minor league football without professional franchises attached to particular programs.

Ope, you beat me to it! Exactly

Sorry should've read ahead

 

[Spaulding!No!]

QB Parker Navarro had some eye popping stats in the Ohio U bowl game.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

So now that we are going to pay players to play a game, I think the question is very important that a lot of non-sports people are asking. Why are we giving free school to people that make twice as much money as the average person? I don’t know how to answer that. Suggestions would be welcome.

if I were the non-revenue folks, I wouldn’t go poking that bear. I think it’s fairly close to being a situation where there are revenues sports - outside the NCAA and then non-revenues sports become like club sports. Eventually there are title ix gymnastics that are going to play out and they think it ends with something as absurd as that.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I dont pretend to be an attorney, and I honestly dont care enough to know what the cases are before the court at this time. I was more speaking in a hypothetical manner not about what is actually going to happen so I will definitely take your word on it for the specifics.

If the courts decide that eligibility caps (like 4/5 years of playing clock) are a restraint on trade than the NCAA is dead. In fact, honestly, you could say that much of the American model of non professional sports is in trouble. Junior Hockey like the USHL has restrictions on the age players can play until, they would lose that if challenged. If there is no age or eligibility restrictions on college that means overagers can come in and play so if a 24 year old wants to keep playing for the Sioux Falls Stampede in hopes that say the Gophers might pick him up to fill a roster spot (and he can get some NIL cash!!) who is the USHL to stop him right? Rulings such as that would be highly problematic and the Law of Unintended Consequences would rear its ugly head most likely. (again I am spitballing based on what you said I am not pretending to know anything about anything just thinking out loud because you piqued my interest)

I won't lie, if I didn't love the Gophers so much I would pretty much never watch college sports anymore and stuff like we are discussing here is a big part of it. Not because I don't want players making money, I absolutely do. And I am for open transfers once (twice if you are a grad) but unlimited seems nuts. It just seems like whatever this is now, and whatever it is likely to become in the near future, just isn't what I was watching the game for. I am not trying to pretend that college sports was pure back in my day or anything because I know way better than that. But whatever this is...its a joke. And the more rules that get taken away, the worse it gets. Unrestricted FA every year for every player is untenable and you throw in uncapped ability to compensate players with no way to stop any real pay for play or tampering is just ridiculous. If you get rid of eligibility caps what are we even doing here?

(sorry long rant which mostly wasnt on topic, I appreciated your insight)

Agreed with pretty much everything here. I don’t advocate for what I’m saying, just reading the tea leaves from the recent court decisions. I hope I’m wrong.