Court ruling today effectively bans the NCAA from limiting students transferring. This is a result of the NCAA arguing the players are students so they should never get paid.

The courts are saying “hey all these athletes are students according to the NCAA, so they must have the same rights all students do”

Think about that. Students are free to enroll anywhere at any age. The ban on enforcing four year eligibility is now in jeopardy.

College football is now effectively a minor league with unregulated free agency. Players will move, sign with any team and play as long as they can until they are drafted.

(12-13-2023 08:10 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  Court ruling today effectively bans the NCAA from limiting students transferring. This is a result of the NCAA arguing the players are students so they should never get paid.

The courts are saying “hey all these athletes are students according to the NCAA, so they must have the same rights all students do”

Think about that. Students are free to enroll anywhere at any age. The ban on enforcing four year eligibility is now in jeopardy.

College football is now effectively a minor league with unregulated free agency. Players will move, sign with any team and play as long as they can until they are drafted.

… at the cost of their development, that’s what a lot of people’s missing out. I think the offensive coordinator over at liberty said that you have a statistically greater chance of making it to the league if you stay in your conference and win all conference honors, then just to try to transfer somewhere.

(12-13-2023 08:10 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  The courts are saying “hey all these athletes are students according to the NCAA, so they must have the same rights all students do”

So college athletes didn't have the same right as any other students before? They weren't allowed to go to any school at any time, dropping out or transferring as they wish? Of course they did, they always did, they just might loose their scholarship opportunity. This is poposterous.

There is no right to play college athletics, and I see no reason why an association created to govern college athletics, or any association created for any reason, should be prevented from establishing rules and guidelines for participation in that association's activities.

Why would a university or collection of universities not be allowed to establish rules for the awarding of scholarships? My brother won a full ride academic scholarship to a major university but it was contingent on him studying a particular major and graduating within a set time frame. He did not want to be restricted to those rules so he turned that scholarship down in favor of other opportunities that better met his needs (much to my parents displeasure). Why would athletics be any difference? Its not.

An association of universities is not trampling on anyones rights by setting rules for participating in college athletics and receiving scholarships. To think otherwise to laughable.

Which clown court made this ruling?

Nevermind I looked it up, one idiot federal judge issued an injunction against the NCAA setting rules preventing a multiple transfers. Again, if you are saying they need to be treated like other students? Fine, lots of regular students also loose scholarships, course credits, internship opportunities, etc if they transfer. How are athletes different?

(12-13-2023 08:51 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(12-13-2023 08:10 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  The courts are saying “hey all these athletes are students according to the NCAA, so they must have the same rights all students do”

So college athletes didn't have the same right as any other students before? They weren't allowed to go to any school at any time, dropping out or transferring as they wish? Of course they did, they always did, they just might loose their scholarship opportunity. This is poposterous.

There is no right to play college athletics, and I see no reason why an association created to govern college athletics, or any association created for any reason, should be prevented from establishing rules and guidelines for participation in that association's activities.

This is obviously correct and I believe schools may still enforce whatever scholarship rules they wish. The issue is anticompetitive collusion between the schools in the form of the NCAA. Athletes have an agreement to attend a school but have never agreed to be regulated by the NCAA.

I'm not a lawyer so that's the extent of my ability to comment on the judge's rationale.

(12-13-2023 09:27 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-13-2023 08:51 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(12-13-2023 08:10 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  The courts are saying “hey all these athletes are students according to the NCAA, so they must have the same rights all students do”

So college athletes didn't have the same right as any other students before? They weren't allowed to go to any school at any time, dropping out or transferring as they wish? Of course they did, they always did, they just might loose their scholarship opportunity. This is poposterous.

There is no right to play college athletics, and I see no reason why an association created to govern college athletics, or any association created for any reason, should be prevented from establishing rules and guidelines for participation in that association's activities.

This is obviously correct and I believe schools may still enforce whatever scholarship rules they wish. The issue is anticompetitive collusion between the schools in the form of the NCAA. Athletes have an agreement to attend a school but have never agreed to be regulated by the NCAA.

I'm not a lawyer so that's the extent of my ability to comment on the judge's rationale.

I am not a lawyer either but I am the father of a high school athlete currently going through the college athletic recruiting process. It has been made absolutely clear to us from the beginning if my daughter wants to play college athletics at an NCAA member institution, she certainly must agree to abide by the rules set forth by the NCAA regarding eligibilty. If my daughter does not want to abide by the NCAA rules for D1, there is also D2 and D3 which have different rules, or NAIA schools, or any one of the far more numerous schools that only sponsor her sport at the club level.

Yes, every college athlete has indeed agreed to be regulated by the NCAA.

(12-13-2023 09:27 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-13-2023 08:51 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(12-13-2023 08:10 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  The courts are saying “hey all these athletes are students according to the NCAA, so they must have the same rights all students do”

So college athletes didn't have the same right as any other students before? They weren't allowed to go to any school at any time, dropping out or transferring as they wish? Of course they did, they always did, they just might loose their scholarship opportunity. This is poposterous.

There is no right to play college athletics, and I see no reason why an association created to govern college athletics, or any association created for any reason, should be prevented from establishing rules and guidelines for participation in that association's activities.

This is obviously correct and I believe schools may still enforce whatever scholarship rules they wish. The issue is anticompetitive collusion between the schools in the form of the NCAA. Athletes have an agreement to attend a school but have never agreed to be regulated by the NCAA.

I'm not a lawyer so that's the extent of my ability to comment on the judge's rationale.

This is not accurate. Most, if not all, NLI's include a statement regarding NCAA regulation. I forget how it's worded but it's been in there. Regardless of that though, today's ruling essentially voided that wording. The NCAA member institutions are now all but backed into a corner to declare all student athletes as employees and work toward a collective bargaining agreement if they hope to maintain any semblance of control.

I guess the court is saying, they agreed to the terms as a condition to play but if those conditions are illegal then it doesn't matter? An employee CBA is legally recognized and enforceable as an employment condition, but the NCAA regime is not. Why that is, I would have to ask a lawyer. My guess would be because other students are not beholden to the same conditions. Yes the schools can individually place conditions on scholarships but when they all collude in the form of the NCAA, they cannot because it's anticompetitive against the students.

Kind of like how if employers in a shared industry get together and share payroll data and agree to fix wages, that is deemed anticompetitive and illegal even if the workers agree to it.

The only remedy here seems to be either accept complete anarchy or effectively treat players like employees with a CBA. Either way, it's minor league professionalization. The NCAA's ability to regulate students seems pretty much dead.

I assume I'm not the only one looking to dust off the cleats and walk on at my alma mater. Gonna blow their minds when I tell em I'll do it for free.

(12-14-2023 12:27 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  I guess the court is saying, they agreed to the terms as a condition to play but if those conditions are illegal then it doesn't matter? An employee CBA is legally recognized and enforceable as an employment condition, but the NCAA regime is not. Why that is, I would have to ask a lawyer. My guess would be because other students are not beholden to the same conditions. Yes the schools can individually place conditions on scholarships but when they all collude in the form of the NCAA, they cannot because it's anticompetitive against the students.

Kind of like how if employers in a shared industry get together and share payroll data and agree to fix wages, that is deemed anticompetitive and illegal even if the workers agree to it.

The only remedy here seems to be either accept complete anarchy or effectively treat players like employees with a CBA. Either way, it's minor league professionalization. The NCAA's ability to regulate students seems pretty much dead.

How is the NCAA any different from any of the other millions of voluntary associations that set rules and standards for the interactions between groups or individual members of the associaton, whether that be an all-encompassing globe-spanning organization like ISO or a local church youth basketball league? Universities do not have to sponsor intercolliegate sports, and if they choose to do so, they don't have to sponsor those sports within the NCAA. The universities choose to do that because it is higher profile, and the athletes choose to be a part of it.

I fail to see how an organization setting rules for participation in that organization's sponsored activities and the interaction between its members is some sort of illegal colluson. There are literally millions of such organizations in every walk of life. Coorperation for the purpose of standardization is not collusion.

Good luck to all these colleges wanting to play minor league sports, may they be just as relevant as the Toledo Mud Hens, Hershey Bears, or Charleston Battery.

(12-14-2023 06:15 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  I assume I'm not the only one looking to dust off the cleats and walk on at my alma mater. Gonna blow their minds when I tell em I'll do it for free.

The college football we all grew up loving is dead.

What we're seeing now is something totally different. Sad.

Will a high school kid who signs a LOI letter of intent be binding? Or can the “student” athletes sign and break as many LOIs as they wish up until classes start?

(12-14-2023 10:21 AM)Johnnychimpo Wrote:  Will a high school kid who signs a LOI letter of intent be binding? Or can the “student” athletes sign and break as many LOIs as they wish up until classes start?

My understanding is that LOIs are still binding one-year contracts between an individual and the school. I don't think yesterday's ruling had direct bearing on that...but I could certainly be wrong. Maybe one of the lawyers on the board can clarify.

I'm surprised we aren't seeing more schools offer scholarships contingent on multiple years of commitment. I certainly think it will head this direction if / when schools are allowed to directly pay the players.

(12-14-2023 11:41 AM)odufansam Wrote:  I'm surprised we aren't seeing more schools offer scholarships contingent on multiple years of commitment. I certainly think it will head this direction if / when schools are allowed to directly pay the players.

I could see that as well

(12-14-2023 11:41 AM)odufansam Wrote:  I'm surprised we aren't seeing more schools offer scholarships contingent on multiple years of commitment. I certainly think it will head this direction if / when schools are allowed to directly pay the players.

Individual schools could definitely do that. However it’s probably a competitive disadvantage if no one else is doing it.

The door is open for schools that want to maintain some semblance of amateurism and pass their own rules like the Ivy League did.

(12-14-2023 02:50 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-14-2023 11:41 AM)odufansam Wrote:  I'm surprised we aren't seeing more schools offer scholarships contingent on multiple years of commitment. I certainly think it will head this direction if / when schools are allowed to directly pay the players.

Individual schools could definitely do that. However it’s probably a competitive disadvantage if no one else is doing it.

The door is open for schools that want to maintain some semblance of amateurism and pass their own rules like the Ivy League did.

We've historically been pretty good at maintaining a semblance of amateurism.


(Okay, I promise that next comment I'll actually contribute to the conversation.)

(12-14-2023 09:28 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(12-14-2023 12:27 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  I guess the court is saying, they agreed to the terms as a condition to play but if those conditions are illegal then it doesn't matter? An employee CBA is legally recognized and enforceable as an employment condition, but the NCAA regime is not. Why that is, I would have to ask a lawyer. My guess would be because other students are not beholden to the same conditions. Yes the schools can individually place conditions on scholarships but when they all collude in the form of the NCAA, they cannot because it's anticompetitive against the students.

Kind of like how if employers in a shared industry get together and share payroll data and agree to fix wages, that is deemed anticompetitive and illegal even if the workers agree to it.

The only remedy here seems to be either accept complete anarchy or effectively treat players like employees with a CBA. Either way, it's minor league professionalization. The NCAA's ability to regulate students seems pretty much dead.

How is the NCAA any different from any of the other millions of voluntary associations that set rules and standards for the interactions between groups or individual members of the associaton, whether that be an all-encompassing globe-spanning organization like ISO or a local church youth basketball league? Universities do not have to sponsor intercolliegate sports, and if they choose to do so, they don't have to sponsor those sports within the NCAA. The universities choose to do that because it is higher profile, and the athletes choose to be a part of it.

I fail to see how an organization setting rules for participation in that organization's sponsored activities and the interaction between its members is some sort of illegal colluson. There are literally millions of such organizations in every walk of life. Coorperation for the purpose of standardization is not collusion.

Good luck to all these colleges wanting to play minor league sports, may they be just as relevant as the Toledo Mud Hens, Hershey Bears, or Charleston Battery.

You’re right in principle of course. My only thought is that unlike most civic leagues the NCAA and membership run a professional media empire worth billions. This attracts judicial scrutiny in the first place. An actually amateur league (no media money, part time coaches, self funded) would probably have more leeway to regulate.

(12-14-2023 11:41 AM)odufansam Wrote:  I'm surprised we aren't seeing more schools offer scholarships contingent on multiple years of commitment. I certainly think it will head this direction if / when schools are allowed to directly pay the players.

…. .. and when “student athletes” break those multiple year schollys (cause the grass may not be greener, but the money is), you gonna go after ‘em in court?

That should be fun.

…. and what if The U. In question decides to break the multiple year scholly, feeling like they’re not getting their money’s worth from their “athletic employee?” “Employee” gonna sue for Breach of Contract?

(12-14-2023 02:50 PM)ODU2017 Wrote:  

(12-14-2023 11:41 AM)odufansam Wrote:  I'm surprised we aren't seeing more schools offer scholarships contingent on multiple years of commitment. I certainly think it will head this direction if / when schools are allowed to directly pay the players.

Individual schools could definitely do that. However it’s probably a competitive disadvantage if no one else is doing it.

The door is open for schools that want to maintain some semblance of amateurism and pass their own rules like the Ivy League did.

Yeah, it can't be "schools can do it if they want to", it will have to be an agreed upon practice by all schools. If the NCAA represents the school, there is going to have to be a collegiate players association, and a collective bargaining agreement will have to be agreed upon and signed by all institutions and the players association. That may be the only way going forward unless one wants anarchy/free for all.