|
Post by slxpress on Dec 13, 2023 17:12:47 GMT -5
Hahahahaha! Oh you summer child. Like volleyball is even on the radar of this ruling. Oh, wait a sec...you don't think I was IMPLYING anything like...heaven forbid... I just replied to the post you made.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 13, 2023 17:14:51 GMT -5
I mean, enforcement kinda is their role. The purpose of the organization is for universities to come together and set parameters for intercollegiate athletic competition. So they create the rules, then obviously have to enforce the rules. And certainly it is reasonable for there to be SOME transfer limitations. I don't think a basketball player should be allowed to play for one team in the fall and a different team in the spring. I think it's reasonable to have a deadline to notify your current team that you're leaving. Limiting to 1 transfer per 4 years? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But I don't think it would be a dramatic change to the landscape. Most athletes don't even use their one transfer. The problem with their enforcement role is they've never had subpoena powers. Universities figured out if they just didn't cooperate with the investigation it became very problematic for the NCAA to prove anything in a court of law, which is where judgements would end up when schools played hardball. The whole system has hair all over it. In many ways the house of cards is fortunate it's stayed upright this long. The massive increase in revenues from all sources has helped incentivize the system to survive, while also exacerbating its paradoxes and conflicts of interest to explosive levels. That's not a satisfactory explanation. If it ended up in litigation, then the NCAA has the power of subpoena through discovery. A better analogy for the NCAA is a cartel, like OPEC, where cooperation benefits everyone in the cartel. Clearly, in this environment, some are benefitting more than others, and the NCAA hasn't figured out how to keep the carterl together.
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Dec 13, 2023 17:16:25 GMT -5
Make sure a legal team reviews their policies for potential issues/challenges before they deploy them? Understand that what their role is (and enforcement ain't it)? Have the athletes best interests in mind? Literally any of these could have helped mitigate their current issues. I mean, enforcement kinda is their role. The purpose of the organization is for universities to come together and set parameters for intercollegiate athletic competition. So they create the rules, then obviously have to enforce the rules. And certainly it is reasonable for there to be SOME transfer limitations. I don't think a basketball player should be allowed to play for one team in the fall and a different team in the spring. I think it's reasonable to have a deadline to notify your current team that you're leaving. Limiting to 1 transfer per 4 years? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But I don't think it would be a dramatic change to the landscape. Most athletes don't even use their one transfer. This is the issue in the case [from The Ohio State Attorney General, one of the 7 attorneys general who brought the lawsuit:
Division I college athletes who had been sidelined by the NCAA’s Transfer Eligibility Rule are free to compete immediately after a federal judge today granted a 14-day restraining order to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and his counterparts in six other states as part of their antitrust lawsuit challenging the rule ...
Under the NCAA rule, college athletes who transfer among Division I schools must wait one year to compete. Since the NCAA began automatically exempting first-time transfers from the regulation in 2021, the rule has mostly ensnared only second-time transfers.
The states argue that the rule is applied arbitrarily, with some waivers granted and others denied for no legitimate reason, and that the NCAA can no longer plausibly substantiate the regulation’s original justifications. What’s more, they say, the rule unfairly restricts athletes’ ability to market their personal brand and control their education.
“We’re challenging the rule to restore fairness, competition and the autonomy of college athletes in their educational pursuits,” Yost said.
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 is in Federal Court because the plaintiffs allege The NCAA Rule at issue is in violation of The Sherman Act, the core Federal Anti-Trust Law. If the plaintiffs prevail in the litigation, enforcement of the rule is moot because The Rule itself is unlawful and unenforceable.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Dec 13, 2023 17:38:34 GMT -5
The problem with their enforcement role is they've never had subpoena powers. Universities figured out if they just didn't cooperate with the investigation it became very problematic for the NCAA to prove anything in a court of law, which is where judgements would end up when schools played hardball. The whole system has hair all over it. In many ways the house of cards is fortunate it's stayed upright this long. The massive increase in revenues from all sources has helped incentivize the system to survive, while also exacerbating its paradoxes and conflicts of interest to explosive levels. That's not a satisfactory explanation. If it ended up in litigation, then the NCAA has the power of subpoena through discovery. A better analogy for the NCAA is a cartel, like OPEC, where cooperation benefits everyone in the cartel. Clearly, in this environment, some are benefitting more than others, and the NCAA hasn't figured out how to keep the carterl together. The problem is, cooperation doesn't benefit everyone in the cartel. It's like a prisoner's dilemma where the reward for cooperating with the small schools in the NCAA is teeny teeny tiny. Hence the latest proposal from the NCAA president. Point to me when the NCAA has gone to court and been able to subpoena people to prove their case. They couldn't get the FBI to hand over any of their findings from the Adidas investigation, which hampered their efforts to punish the schools involved. I know a penalty was handed down to KU after 6 years! but it wasn't anything close to what the NCAA was seeking. Nearly all of their penalties involving improper payments over the last 30 years or so have come from court actions that didn't involve the NCAA where subpoena powers were used.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 13, 2023 17:46:09 GMT -5
That's not a satisfactory explanation. If it ended up in litigation, then the NCAA has the power of subpoena through discovery. A better analogy for the NCAA is a cartel, like OPEC, where cooperation benefits everyone in the cartel. Clearly, in this environment, some are benefitting more than others, and the NCAA hasn't figured out how to keep the carterl together. The problem is, cooperation doesn't benefit everyone in the cartel. It's like a prisoner's dilemma where the reward for cooperating with the small schools in the NCAA is teeny teeny tiny. Hence the latest proposal from the NCAA president. Point to me when the NCAA has gone to court and been able to subpoena people to prove their case. They couldn't get the FBI to hand over any of their findings from the Adidas investigation, which hampered their efforts to punish the schools involved. I know a penalty was handed down to KU after 6 years! but it wasn't anything close to what the NCAA was seeking. Nearly all of their penalties involving improper payments over the last 30 years or so have come from court actions that didn't involve the NCAA where subpoena powers were used. I based that response on this comment by you: it became very problematic for the NCAA to prove anything in a court of law, which is where judgements would end up when schools played hardball.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Dec 13, 2023 18:02:01 GMT -5
The problem is, cooperation doesn't benefit everyone in the cartel. It's like a prisoner's dilemma where the reward for cooperating with the small schools in the NCAA is teeny teeny tiny. Hence the latest proposal from the NCAA president. Point to me when the NCAA has gone to court and been able to subpoena people to prove their case. They couldn't get the FBI to hand over any of their findings from the Adidas investigation, which hampered their efforts to punish the schools involved. I know a penalty was handed down to KU after 6 years! but it wasn't anything close to what the NCAA was seeking. Nearly all of their penalties involving improper payments over the last 30 years or so have come from court actions that didn't involve the NCAA where subpoena powers were used. I based that response on this comment by you: it became very problematic for the NCAA to prove anything in a court of law, which is where judgements would end up when schools played hardball. I understand where you got it from. I'm saying the NCAA investigations don't have subpoena powers and they're not prepared to back up their findings in a court of law. I understand in a court of law they would have subpoena powers, but they do not get that far, because that's not the direction the NCAA wants to go in. Therefore enforcement is spotty at best, and really closer and closer to non existent. They depend on findings produced in a cases where subpoena powers are involved to back up their investigations.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 13, 2023 18:49:14 GMT -5
I based that response on this comment by you: it became very problematic for the NCAA to prove anything in a court of law, which is where judgements would end up when schools played hardball. I understand where you got it from. I'm saying the NCAA investigations don't have subpoena powers and they're not prepared to back up their findings in a court of law. I understand in a court of law they would have subpoena powers, but they do not get that far, because that's not the direction the NCAA wants to go in. Therefore enforcement is spotty at best, and really closer and closer to non existent. They depend on findings produced in a cases where subpoena powers are involved to back up their investigations. I've conducted many NCAA investigations, and I couldn't disagree more. Subpoena power isn't required to arrive at a decision or to compel enforcement, particularly if the enforcement action is directed towards employees rather than student-athletes. In most cases where cooperation is refused, the institution isn't particularly interested in furthering the enforcement action. The more prominent the program, the less interested in enforcement they are. It's the scenario that led to the old jokes about the NCAA punishing Alabama by sanctioning Kent State.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Dec 13, 2023 18:53:42 GMT -5
I understand where you got it from. I'm saying the NCAA investigations don't have subpoena powers and they're not prepared to back up their findings in a court of law. I understand in a court of law they would have subpoena powers, but they do not get that far, because that's not the direction the NCAA wants to go in. Therefore enforcement is spotty at best, and really closer and closer to non existent. They depend on findings produced in a cases where subpoena powers are involved to back up their investigations. I've conducted many NCAA investigations, and I couldn't disagree more. Subpoena power isn't required to arrive at a decision or to compel enforcement, particularly if the enforcement action is directed towards employees rather than student-athletes. In most cases where cooperation is refused, the institution isn't particularly interested in furthering the enforcement action. The more prominent the program, the less interested in enforcement they are. It's the scenario that led to the old jokes about the NCAA punishing Alabama by sanctioning Kent State. Help me out where enforcement against major programs because of improper payments was enforced by the NCAA without some kind of court action not involving the NCAA?
|
|
|
Post by greatlakesvballer on Dec 13, 2023 18:54:51 GMT -5
Caffey is somewhere licking her lips right now! 🤣🤣🤣 #Year10 funniest thing I've seen on VT for a while!
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 13, 2023 18:56:22 GMT -5
I've conducted many NCAA investigations, and I couldn't disagree more. Subpoena power isn't required to arrive at a decision or to compel enforcement, particularly if the enforcement action is directed towards employees rather than student-athletes. In most cases where cooperation is refused, the institution isn't particularly interested in furthering the enforcement action. The more prominent the program, the less interested in enforcement they are. It's the scenario that led to the old jokes about the NCAA punishing Alabama by sanctioning Kent State. Help me out where enforcement against major programs because of improper payments was enforced by the NCAA without some kind of court action not involving the NCAA? I don't understand your question. What kind of court actions are you referring to? Usually, if there's some kind of court action, it's because someone is contesting an enforcement action.
|
|
|
Post by bballin on Dec 13, 2023 20:07:41 GMT -5
Does this mean the "Wild West" just got wilder? Yes, RIP college volleyball
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 13, 2023 20:10:41 GMT -5
At this point they might as well make scholarships for 1 year. Schools should also be able to decide if they want to move on. heck, make it 6 month scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 13, 2023 20:16:41 GMT -5
I have always thought that student athletes should be just as free to transfer schools as any other students are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2023 20:29:26 GMT -5
Things are going to get spicey. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Dec 14, 2023 18:42:40 GMT -5
|
|