|
Post by greekvbfan1 on Apr 18, 2024 1:04:07 GMT -5
I'm amazed how people is the states you are insisting against the right of college players having a fair share of the product that are producing. At least from now on great players with no financial means won't have to starve during their scolarship years and at the same time coaches or colleges make millions through them. NCAA accept the hard fact that amateurism in college sports is a ship that was sailed years ago (when FBI was trying to prove illegal practices in recruting new players). After NCAA recent rulings, this kind of police investigation is over and for good. Now colleges are signing NIL agreements and a top level player could negotiate his NIL money as any other professional player anywhere in this world. And Dartmouth students who voted to form a union are showing the future in college sports. Even if it would take a decade of legal arguments in courts.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2024 7:20:37 GMT -5
won't have to starve during their scolarship years You clearly don’t know what the life of a scholarship student athlete at a Power 5 school is like if you think they’re starving.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Apr 18, 2024 9:16:16 GMT -5
Think about this: mid-major basketball team plays Power 4 team in November. Power 4 team loves a player on that team. Word gets to him that they'd love him to transfer. He transfers mid-year and starts playing in January for the Power 4 team.
Possible?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2024 9:48:32 GMT -5
Think about this: mid-major basketball team plays Power 4 team in November. Power 4 team loves a player on that team. Word gets to him that they'd love him to transfer. He transfers mid-year and starts playing in January for the Power 4 team. Possible? I think a court would find a prohibition on mid-season transfers to be reasonable. I can't imagine that changing.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 18, 2024 10:28:57 GMT -5
Think about this: mid-major basketball team plays Power 4 team in November. Power 4 team loves a player on that team. Word gets to him that they'd love him to transfer. He transfers mid-year and starts playing in January for the Power 4 team. Possible? I think a court would find a prohibition on mid-season transfers to be reasonable. I can't imagine that changing. If it’s an antitrust violation to violate a players NIL rights by making them sit out a season for transferring inbetween seasons …. how is it not exactly the same antitrust violation using exactly the same logic to make them sit out the 2nd half of a season for transferring inbetween halves of a season? Certainly, it would eventually come down to a judge or judges making a decision, and they could choose to uphold the rule as you predict. But I don’t see it as a slam dunk by any means. Luckily for volleyball, it is completely contained within the fall semester. But basketball goes over the semester break. And football later playoff rounds will be in the spring semester. (Weirdo schools that use quarters, can’t help you there )
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2024 11:00:54 GMT -5
I think a court would find a prohibition on mid-season transfers to be reasonable. I can't imagine that changing. If it’s an antitrust violation to violate a players NIL rights by making them sit out a season for transferring inbetween seasons …. how is it not exactly the same antitrust violation using exactly the same logic to make them sit out the 2nd half of a season for transferring inbetween halves of a season? Certainly, it would eventually come down to a judge or judges making a decision, and they could choose to uphold the rule as you predict. But I don’t see it as a slam dunk by any means. Luckily for volleyball, it is completely contained within the fall semester. But basketball goes over the semester break. And football later playoff rounds will be in the spring semester. (Weirdo schools that use quarters, can’t help you there :) ) Because I think it would be fairly simple to argue that in competitive sports, it is reasonable to not allow free movement within a single season for competitive reasons, not antitrust reasons. It’s only an antitrust violation if the rules are used to rig the system.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 18, 2024 11:19:59 GMT -5
If it’s an antitrust violation to violate a players NIL rights by making them sit out a season for transferring inbetween seasons …. how is it not exactly the same antitrust violation using exactly the same logic to make them sit out the 2nd half of a season for transferring inbetween halves of a season? Certainly, it would eventually come down to a judge or judges making a decision, and they could choose to uphold the rule as you predict. But I don’t see it as a slam dunk by any means. Luckily for volleyball, it is completely contained within the fall semester. But basketball goes over the semester break. And football later playoff rounds will be in the spring semester. (Weirdo schools that use quarters, can’t help you there ) Because I think it would be fairly simple to argue that in competitive sports, it is reasonable to not allow free movement within a single season for competitive reasons, not antitrust reasons. It’s only an antitrust violation if the rules are used to rig the system. Why is an antitrust violation to require a sit out if transferring inbetween seasons? Why does whatever reasoning/logic used in that, suddenly not apply because the transfer is within a season? It seems like your argument would be something akin to “yes it’s still the same violation …. but you should rule it’s not a violation anyway, because that would be better for reasons having nothing to do with the law being violated.”
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Apr 18, 2024 11:31:05 GMT -5
What are you people talking about? Players transfer in basketball mid season right now. There’s no prohibition on it. It doesn’t happen often, so it might start occurring more frequently. But the next player to do it will not be the first.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 18, 2024 11:38:39 GMT -5
I think a court would find a prohibition on mid-season transfers to be reasonable. I can't imagine that changing. If it’s an antitrust violation to violate a players NIL rights by making them sit out a season for transferring inbetween seasons …. how is it not exactly the same antitrust violation using exactly the same logic to make them sit out the 2nd half of a season for transferring inbetween halves of a season? Certainly, it would eventually come down to a judge or judges making a decision, and they could choose to uphold the rule as you predict. But I don’t see it as a slam dunk by any means. Luckily for volleyball, it is completely contained within the fall semester. But basketball goes over the semester break. And football later playoff rounds will be in the spring semester. (Weirdo schools that use quarters, can’t help you there ) The difference is that a mid-season transfer between institutions involves academic, admissions and eligibility issues that the court has already ruled are within the jurisdiction of the institutions (and NCAA). A limitation on eligibility in the same season is much more reasonable than a full year or a full season after the transfer.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2024 12:05:01 GMT -5
What are you people talking about? Players transfer in basketball mid season right now. There’s no prohibition on it. It doesn’t happen often, so it might start occurring more frequently. But the next player to do it will not be the first. And competing for their new team in the same season? I’m a college basketball fan and have not heard of this happening. Do you have an example?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2024 12:10:26 GMT -5
When basketball transfers had to sit for one season, sometimes they would transfer at the semester so they’d be allowed to start competing in January of the NEXT season. But once they started allowing transfers to compete immediately, there became no real incentive to do that.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 18, 2024 12:16:11 GMT -5
If it’s an antitrust violation to violate a players NIL rights by making them sit out a season for transferring inbetween seasons …. how is it not exactly the same antitrust violation using exactly the same logic to make them sit out the 2nd half of a season for transferring inbetween halves of a season? Certainly, it would eventually come down to a judge or judges making a decision, and they could choose to uphold the rule as you predict. But I don’t see it as a slam dunk by any means. Luckily for volleyball, it is completely contained within the fall semester. But basketball goes over the semester break. And football later playoff rounds will be in the spring semester. (Weirdo schools that use quarters, can’t help you there ) The difference is that a mid-season transfer between institutions involves academic, admissions and eligibility issues that the court has already ruled are within the jurisdiction of the institutions (and NCAA). A limitation on eligibility in the same season is much more reasonable than a full year or a full season after the transfer. Schools obviously control admissions and academics. But that just means they have to agree to admit the player and the player had to be in good academic standing and making good progress toward a degree. That’s no barrier. Eligibility is the entire heart of the question. If the NCAA has the legal authority to regulate eligibility as you claim, then why did they just cave?? They should’ve won the court case slam dunk. In fact, the judge should have never issued the injunction in the first place. But that’s not what happened. Therefore I question your claim
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 18, 2024 12:49:36 GMT -5
The difference is that a mid-season transfer between institutions involves academic, admissions and eligibility issues that the court has already ruled are within the jurisdiction of the institutions (and NCAA). A limitation on eligibility in the same season is much more reasonable than a full year or a full season after the transfer. Schools obviously control admissions and academics. But that just means they have to agree to admit the player and the player had to be in good academic standing and making good progress toward a degree. That’s no barrier. Eligibility is the entire heart of the question. If the NCAA has the legal authority to regulate eligibility as you claim, then why did they just cave?? They should’ve won the court case slam dunk. In fact, the judge should have never issued the injunction in the first place. But that’s not what happened. Therefore I question your claim I believe the injunction you are referring to was regarding the number of transfers allowed (one time transfer rule), not the issue of mid-season transfer eligibility. If you read the Alston decision on NIL, the Supreme Court permits the NCAA to maintain a monopoly on amateur sports, which includes allowing it to set reasonable constraints on eligibility (Justice Kavanaugh included a statement questioning the viability--or future viability--of the NCAA model, but that was not adopted as part of the majority decision). The crux of the Alston decision is that it allowed the NCAA to maintain its monopoly of (i.e. its authority to regulate) amateur college sports, but ruled that it's intrusions into areas that impact the participation in the general labor market were anti-competitive, and violated anti-trust law. The decision also addresses the regulatory authority the NCAA maintains regarding the institutional requirements and rules and was generally permissive about them, although they did affirm the trial court finding that some of the financial limits on educationally related costs were too restrictive or arbitrary, and allowed them to be increased (but did not find that absolutes limits were illegal.)
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 18, 2024 13:01:43 GMT -5
Schools obviously control admissions and academics. But that just means they have to agree to admit the player and the player had to be in good academic standing and making good progress toward a degree. That’s no barrier. Eligibility is the entire heart of the question. If the NCAA has the legal authority to regulate eligibility as you claim, then why did they just cave?? They should’ve won the court case slam dunk. In fact, the judge should have never issued the injunction in the first place. But that’s not what happened. Therefore I question your claim I believe the injunction you are referring to was regarding the number of transfers allowed (one time transfer rule), not the issue of mid-season transfer eligibility. If you read the Alston decision on NIL, the Supreme Court permits the NCAA to maintain a monopoly on amateur sports, which includes allowing it to set reasonable constraints on eligibility (Justice Kavanaugh included a statement questioning the viability--or future viability--of the NCAA model, but that was not adopted as part of the majority decision). The crux of the Alston decision is that it allowed the NCAA to maintain its monopoly of (i.e. its authority to regulate) amateur college sports, but ruled that it's intrusions into areas that impact the participation in the general labor market were anti-competitive, and violated anti-trust law. The decision also addresses the regulatory authority the NCAA maintains regarding the institutional requirements and rules and was generally permissive about them, although they did affirm the trial court finding that some of the financial limits on educationally related costs were too restrictive or arbitrary, and allowed them to be increased (but did not find that absolutes limits were illegal.) Everything you say here is well stated, and I think already understood. Yes the injunction was for inbetween seasons (multiple times). Not for mid-season. You argued that court precedent gives the NCAA the authority to regulate eligibility. So then why did they cave? If they have the authority, as you say they do, then they would have no risk of losing the case. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t see how it can be one but not the other. This is all hypothetical. I think we’re just going to have to wait and see if someone tests it, and then if the NCAA caves again or if they go to court and what the judge(s) say(s).
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 18, 2024 13:07:50 GMT -5
I believe the injunction you are referring to was regarding the number of transfers allowed (one time transfer rule), not the issue of mid-season transfer eligibility. If you read the Alston decision on NIL, the Supreme Court permits the NCAA to maintain a monopoly on amateur sports, which includes allowing it to set reasonable constraints on eligibility (Justice Kavanaugh included a statement questioning the viability--or future viability--of the NCAA model, but that was not adopted as part of the majority decision). The crux of the Alston decision is that it allowed the NCAA to maintain its monopoly of (i.e. its authority to regulate) amateur college sports, but ruled that it's intrusions into areas that impact the participation in the general labor market were anti-competitive, and violated anti-trust law. The decision also addresses the regulatory authority the NCAA maintains regarding the institutional requirements and rules and was generally permissive about them, although they did affirm the trial court finding that some of the financial limits on educationally related costs were too restrictive or arbitrary, and allowed them to be increased (but did not find that absolutes limits were illegal.) Everything you say here is well stated, and I think already understood. Yes the injunction was for inbetween seasons (multiple times). Not for mid-season. You argued that court precedent gives the NCAA the authority to regulate eligibility. So then why did they cave? If they have the authority, as you say they do, then they would have no risk of losing the case. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t see how it can be one but not the other. This is all hypothetical. I think we’re just going to have to wait and see if someone tests it, and then if the NCAA caves again or if they go to court and what the judge(s) say(s). My argument was that a limitation on a mid-season eligibility (that is, not allowing immediate eligibility) is more defensible than requiring a full year to transpire before being eligible, or denying a student-athlete multiple tranfers (which is not a limitation that exists for regular students, for example.)
|
|